CAP Seal Background Color

[pierson777]

The CAP seal is described in CAPR 900-1 Civil Air Patrol Name, Seal, Logo, Command Emblem and Flag Etiquette.  It states, "when the seal is produced in color, the background will be silver gray."

Why does Vanguard sell items that do not fit this desciption?  On the seal for the polo (golf) shirt the background is baby blue.  On the bullion seal for the mess dress it is white.  On the enamelled seal for the mess dress it is dark blue.  On the seals for plaques it is dark blue. 

Who is responsible for ensuring this stuff is correct?  Does anyone from national monitor these issues and work with Vanguard to fix them?  I hope they fix the polo shirt.  I really dislike the baby blue color.

This is an example of the various seals from throughout the years.  Notice how the background color is silver gray on the old style patches.  Those are correct, but the rest are not.
[/URL

[Panache]

Preach it, brother!

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18484.0

[NIN]

To be fair to Vanguard, I believe that the dark blue color on the background of the dinner plate has always been that way

[LSThiker]

To be fair to Vanguard, I believe that the dark blue color on the background of the dinner plate has always been that way

It was.  CAPMart sold the dinner plate with a blue background.  Therefore, Vanguard is selling these items because CAP has told them to produce these items in that manner and sell them that way. 

[pierson777]

To be fair to Vanguard, I believe that the dark blue color on the background of the dinner plate has always been that way

Yes. You are correct.  I know because I bought that one 14 years from the Bookstore, predecessor to CAPMart.   I'm curious why issues like this are not addressed and corrected.  That just tells me they've been it doing wrong for decades, and no one cares enough to address the issue.  Some people cared enough to write and approve the regulation, but where is the enforcement?

Vanguard won't let you comment on an item unless you purchase it first.  I doubt they would care much about what the general membership had to say anyway.  The chain of command is useless for something like this, because the higher echelon commanders are too busy with other issues to to be concerned with something like the color of our official seal on the polo shirts and mess dress.

BTW, the bullion seal looks like it has a grey background in my photo, but that's just the flash/lighting.  I assure you it appears white in person.

[Panache]

Well, if it's been produced with the light blue background since the CAPMart days, and all of the sudden you change the background to Light Gray, all those people who have CAP polos who like the light blue background (or just have gotten use to them) might be irked.  Not to mention, now you'll have two "official" versions of the polos floating around in circulation...

[Storm Chaser]

What has been done in the past and what Vanguard sells is irrelevant. The most recent version of CAPR 900-2 clearly states the colors of the CAP Seal. If NHQ wants to have multiple versions of the Seal floating around, they can update the regulation to allow different variants. But as it's stand now, items being sold by Vanguard are not meeting the standard prescribed by the regulation. That should be corrected.

[Eclipse]

This whole issue gets back to the need to slow things down in CAP and fix the baselines.

If you spend any time in the regs, there is so much being done either incorrectly, or based on "assumption" it's shocking.
Not to mention simple, straightforward questions which have remained open for years if not decades that get crickets, blank stares
or conflicting answers from NHQ when brought to the table.

As mentioned, we can't fix yesterday, but we can fix tomorrow.

Any good manager or leader knows that if your baselines are broken, the entire organization suffers along with its ability
to grow and adapt, heck, even viability is an issue in some cases.

Instead of constantly reinventing the wheel and focusing on this months "shiny project" we should be plugging the holes, fixing the baselines, and
generally cleaning out the dead weight and clutter.

Taken individually none of these issues are of standout importance, but collectively, they certainly are.

Monopoly vendors that ignore standards and specifications, not to mention the lack of standards and specifications, etc., etc.
We have 30,000 some odd adult members, probably 10,000 of which are actually active.  How about using their expertise to
identify and fix these issues?

[Ned]

I know because I bought that one 14 years from the Bookstore, predecessor to CAPMart.   I'm curious why issues like this are not addressed and corrected.  That just tells me they've been it doing wrong for decades, and no one cares enough to address the issue.  Some people cared enough to write and approve the regulation, but where is the enforcement?

You are undoubtedly correct that this has simply been overlooked for a decade or two.  On a optional uniform item probably worn by less than 2% of CAP members.  (I wear the embroidered version.)

And as you surmise, "enforcement" is simply a matter of the contract administrators at NHQ coordinating with Vanguard to fix this issue.

Vanguard won't let you comment on an item unless you purchase it first. 

Really?  I have not found that to be true.  I just call them and ask to speak with their CAP program manager.  I've also dropped them a note.  They have always been responsive and concerned about maintaining their quality.  In this case, it sounds like it is entirely CAP's fault that Vanguard continued to produce the same item that the Bookstore produced.

The chain of command is useless for something like this, because the higher echelon commanders are too busy with other issues to to be concerned with something like the color of our official seal on the polo shirts and mess dress.

There is some truth in that.  There are some pretty important things on the plates of our volunteer leaders, but following regulations is important, too.  Did you try advising your wing commander of the discrepancy?   Did she / he tell you they were too busy to respond?

We have a chain of command for a reason -- because that is the most efficient way to accomplish our missions, and we need a supportive infrastructure (including our uniforms) to do so. 

Publicly complaining about stuff on the internet instead of addressing it through the system is not as helpful as you imagine. 

[Eclipse]

Vanguard won't let you comment on an item unless you purchase it first. 

Really?  I have not found that to be true.  I just call them and ask to speak with their CAP program manager.  I've also dropped them a note.  They have always been responsive and concerned about maintaining their quality.  In this case, it sounds like it is entirely CAP's fault that Vanguard continued to produce the same item that the Bookstore produced.

You can't post a review on their website unless you've purchased the product. Why anyone would bother reviewing a product with a single-source is beyond me,
but the fact remains.

Edit: It appears this has changed or may simply be a case of reviews not being approved for display.

Publicly complaining about stuff on the internet instead of addressing it through the system is not as helpful as you imagine.

Recent history both here and other outlets for "complaining" disagrees.  Issues that languish in the chain for years are suddenty addressed when they get the light of day.

[Eclipse]

The chain of command is useless for something like this, because the higher echelon commanders are too busy with other issues to to be concerned with something like the color of our official seal on the polo shirts and mess dress.

There is some truth in that.  There are some pretty important things on the plates of our volunteer leaders, but following regulations is important, too.  Did you try advising your wing commander of the discrepancy?   Did she / he tell you they were too busy to respond?

We have a chain of command for a reason -- because that is the most efficient way to accomplish our missions, and we need a supportive infrastructure (including our uniforms) to do so. 

Any Wing CC who views the background color of an insignia produced by our sole-source vendor as a priority should be removed immediately.

As you say, we have contract negotiators on staff who are tasked with this, not to mention the simple integrity of the vendor in actually
reading the specifications when they exist, or pushing NHQ for the spec when they don't.

We also have hundreds, if not thousands, of members who have specific expertise in vendor negotiations, graphic arts and identify development, not to mention the basic
ability to read the regs.

Why aren't we using them?

[a2capt]

As for variants of the polo shirt, there are already several. Just look around at any large gathering..

[Eclipse]

As for variants of the polo shirt, there are already several. Just look around at any large gathering..

Those huge badge insignias look ridiculous.

[Ned]

Recent history both here and other outlets for "complaining" disagrees.  Issues that languish in the chain for years are suddenty addressed when they get the light of day.

First, there is no indication that this particular issue has "languished in the chain for years."  Indeed, the implication by the OP was that they never bothered to try to use the chain.  Which was why I asked, just to be sure.

Second, every good leader will try to correct problems that come to their attention, even if it comes to their attention through improper means.  Part of that fix is educating the complainer about the proper method to swiftly and appropriately bring issues to the leadership.   Which is how we prevent problems from languishing in the first place.

[Eclipse]

OK, summarily ignored by all responsible parties?

Whomever is responsible for enforcing the vendor contracts needs to be fired or relieved, and Vanguard should
have some contractual tenants that penalize them when they produce products of unacceptable quality or
which do not adhere to specifications.

The fact that it appears no end-to-end review of specifications, for products they are expected to produce, is
simply flabbergasting.   If for no other reason then you have to set up the machines, create dies, order or
schedule resins, etc., etc.  But it appears VG just took the business and asked few questions, and NHQ was
happy enough to get "someone" to hand it off to, so didn't push from their end, either.

As to the "chain" - let's not kid ourselves or play games.  There is no "chain" in this regard.  Real, serious
issues die on the vine all the time because someone in the "chain" can't be bothered.  This kind of thing
isn't the responsibility of anyone below NHQ, so why would anyone below that level waste their precious
CAP time?  Talk about windmills.

There is an OPR for this, they should fix it and anything else related.

Here's a thought - does NHQ have a CI or anything similar?    Not financial audits or
inventory inspections, a top-down inspection like every other echelon has to endure?

I imagine that would be "fun".

[Ned]

Whomever is responsible for enforcing the vendor contracts needs to be fired or relieved, and Vanguard should
have some contractual tenants that penalize them when they produce products of unacceptable quality or
which do not adhere to specifications.

As to the "chain" - let's not kid ourselves or play games.  There is no "chain" in this regard.  Real, serious
issues die on the vine all the time because someone in the "chain" can't be bothered.  This kind of thing
isn't the responsibility of anyone below NHQ, so why would anyone below that level waste their precious
CAP time?  Talk about windmills.

What a classic CAPTalk over reaction to a trivial uniform issue.

Seriously, here is a discrepancy on a uniform item used by less than 2% of the membership that went unnoticed for decades.  And somebody should be fired?

Weren't you the guy who said:

Any Wing CC who views the background color of an insignia produced by our sole-source vendor as a priority should be removed immediately.

You seem to have a limited number of tools in your Leadership Tool Box, sir.   

There is an OPR for this, they should fix it and anything else related.

Yup, absolutely.  Someone just needs to tell them about it.  Which is what the chain is for.

Really, just takes the briefest of notes - "Hey, I was looking at Vanguard Item # CAP 0900A, the enameled seal for the mess dress, and the blue background appears to be in conflict with the official description of the seal in CAPR 900-1, which prescribes a "silver gray."  Just thought you'd like to know."

This needs to be fixed, but let's all retain a sense of perspective here.

[FlyTiger77]

... let's all retain a sense of perspective here.

You do realize that this is CAPTalk, don't you?   

[Eclipse]

This needs to be fixed, but let's all retain a sense of perspective here.

Don't trivialize it with the typical "Seriously, is this a big deal?" response.  That apathy is
why we're in the mess we're in not just with our uniforms, but in a lot of other areas as well. Details matter.

It's not just this issue, it is the issue.

Just for snicks, who, exactly, >is< the OPR for Vanguard quality and specification issues?

And lastly, again, why is this, like so many other "trivial" issues with clear regs and simple specs simply left to
the rank and file membership to address / complain about / live with?

As someone who lives and dies by details in my business life, I absolutely >hate< being caught out on stuff like
this.  Much of my work is done in a space where 6 months of planning, hundred of man hours, and thousands of
dollars ride on whether a brand's colors look right, a screen is the wrong resolution, or the response time on a
system is laggy.  In the end it's about appearance and customer experience, and for CAP that's both internal and
external customers.

Stupid little trivialities that call into question the attention to detail of the whole situation, and may not get you a call back.
Except in CAP's case, the membership has little to no choice.

My response, at least to the people who are kind enough to occasionally write me a check, is never "That's just how it is...",
or "That's how the last guy did it."

It's "I'll get it fixed."

[pierson777]

Vanguard won't let you comment on an item unless you purchase it first. 

Really?  I have not found that to be true.  I just call them and ask to speak with their CAP program manager.  I've also dropped them a note.  They have always been responsive and concerned about maintaining their quality.  In this case, it sounds like it is entirely CAP's fault that Vanguard continued to produce the same item that the Bookstore produced.

Darnit, you're right.  I stand corrected.  I was thinking about another online store (not CAP related) that I was shopping last Fall that didn't allow reviews unless you purchased the item.  Thank you for pointing that out, and my apologies.  Please disregard that statement.  I'll contact Vanguard later and ask them about the embroidered seal.

[Eclipse]

Reviews require approval before they will appear.  Good luck with that.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Wasn't one of the reasons if not THE REASON that The Hock Shop was dispensed with the lack of quality control/inability to keep standards?



Yet Vanguard is doing the same according to most posters here...



...Nothing appears to be done by NHQ...



Flyer

[Ned]

Don't trivialize it with the typical "Seriously, is this a big deal?" response. 

But, Bob, it IS a trivial detail.  Petty, picayune, trifling, or whatever you want to call it.

It is an optional item on an optional uniform worn by very few members.  So minor a defect that it has gone all but unnoticed by anyone for well over a decade.

It's not just this issue, it is the issue. [ . . .]

Stupid little trivialities that call into question the attention to detail of the whole situation

Look, I get the whole "for the want of a nail, the shoe was lost" argument, but leaders who can't tell the difference between trivial and important issues cannot lead effectively in large organizations.

And this is probably the best example of a trivial detail I can imagine.  Sure, it needs to get fixed, but to start talking about firing people and predicting Doom and Gloom for the entire organization is just silly.

And poor leadership.

[Storm Chaser]

Seriously, here is a discrepancy on a uniform item used by less than 2% of the membership that went unnoticed for decades.  And somebody should be fired?

Only 2% of members wear the CAP polo shirt? I'm pretty sure that number is larger, much larger than that.

[Ned]

Wasn't one of the reasons if not THE REASON that The Hock Shop was dispensed with the lack of quality control/inability to keep standards?



Yet Vanguard is doing the same according to most posters here...



...Nothing appears to be done by NHQ...



Flyer

Luis,

If you go back and read some of the previous posts, you will see this is not a Vanguard issue.  They are simply making the same products that CAP itself made for years and sold through the Bookstore and CAPMart.  If there was a mistake made, Vanguard had nothing to do with it.

[Eclipse]

It's not just this issue, it is the issue. [ . . .]

Stupid little trivialities that call into question the attention to detail of the whole situation

Look, I get the whole "for the want of a nail, the shoe was lost" argument, but leaders who can't tell the difference between trivial and important issues cannot lead effectively in large organizations.

And this is probably the best example of a trivial detail I can imagine.  Sure, it needs to get fixed, but to start talking about firing people and predicting Doom and Gloom for the entire organization is just silly.

And poor leadership.

Firing people not doing the job is poor leadership?  I think the entirety of the for-profit business sector disagrees.

Yes,

This.

Particular.

Issue.

In and of itself.

Is one in a forest of small things.  However, there's supposed to be staff to handle this, which means FOR THEM.
It's not trivial, IT"S THEIR JOB. 

Short handed?  Burn the "not invented here" shirts and start asking for help.

This is one of 10 or 20 "easy" fixes.

3 or 4 seasoned members take the regs and spend a few days at Vanguard reviewing
quality and specification issues of every piece of inventory, sends a report to VG and the
NHQ OPR with a 60-day response and 120 day remediation required.

This sort of thing should have been in the contract.

[Eclipse]

And who, specifically, is the OPR for this?

[Storm Chaser]

I don't think these types of issues should be submitted through the chain of command. My group commander, wing commander and region commander have more important things to do than to forward these up the chain. I should be able to contact the OPR directly with these types of issues or concerns.

Edited for spelling/grammar.

[Luis R. Ramos]

But Ned, I do remember the posts! 

Basically people seem to be posting that when NHQ issued the contracts or handed the contracts or whatever NHQ did not give standards/specs to Vanguard...

Yet it also appears that when Vanguard runs out of something they create their own specs! 

Flyer

[NIN]

The OPR for uniform items is DP.

This is part and parcel the proximate result of paring down of the HQ staff to the bare minimum. 

Whereas the Bookstore probably had one of their paid people who might have been an expert on heraldry and was the sort of "go to" person for that sort of thing, in the ensuing 20 years since the reorganization of CAP, Inc, we've seen a lot of things outsourced, pared down, moved on line, pushed out to the field, etc.

Heraldry is one of those things that on the surface seems "easy and not terribly important" when you're talking about maintaining your major programs, layoffs, etc. (ie. you're not going to cut out someone in the safety department so you can keep a guy on staff who knows that "bar sinister" is not a place where bad guys go to get a drink)

[Eclipse]

The OPR for uniform items is DP.

This is part and parcel the proximate result of paring down of the HQ staff to the bare minimum. 

The DP is a volunteer, like everyone else.  Where is his staff?

30,000 adult volunteers.

This also isn't "heraldry".  In most cases this is holding the vendor accountable for quality and adherence to the specs.

It requires someone who isn't color blind and a reasonable eye for detail.

30,000 adult volunteers.

[Ned]

30,000 adult volunteers.

Yup, one of whom noticed a minor discrepancy which can be fixed with a simple notification through the chain.


Well, that and two pages of exciting discussion on CAPTalk.  If only we could generate this much interest in mission-related matters.

[Eclipse]

30,000 adult volunteers.

Yup, one of whom noticed a minor discrepancy which can be fixed with a simple notification through the chain.

Yes, by all means let's minimize the issue by continuing to try and shape the conversation as if this is
only about a single issue and beyond that, NHQ, Vanguard, and all involved have their act together.

That, is the SOP.

That is why CAP is in the position it is in today.

[SamFranklin]

I agree with Ned. 

The measure of an organization is what it accomplishes, not what it does along the way to produce that accomplishment. Bob has missed the mark in saying that trivia like seal background tells us something important about our organization. I agree it's a snafu and shows that we get lots of little administrative things wrong and can do better in that area. But, mission accomplishment is the metric. These aren't the droids we're looking for. 

[Tim Medeiros]

The OPR for uniform items is DP.

This is part and parcel the proximate result of paring down of the HQ staff to the bare minimum. 

The DP is a volunteer, like everyone else.  Where is his staff?

30,000 adult volunteers.

This also isn't "heraldry".  In most cases this is holding the vendor accountable for quality and adherence to the specs.

It requires someone who isn't color blind and a reasonable eye for detail.

30,000 adult volunteers.

The OPR is not a volunteer, according to http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/member_services/contacts/ the OPR is Ms LaBarre who is paid staff.  If you look in the key personnel directory she's listed with the Chaplain/Health Services folks.  She's also rather approachable, a quick non-snippy email would likely put this on the track to resolution.

[Panache]

I have to admit a bit of amusement that this is a big deal in some people's minds.

Of all the things...

[Eclipse]

Seriously, you're missing the point.

The issue isn't any one insignia, it's the fact that all of these details are blown off or left to the members to deal with.

If we have paid staff who's job it is to do this, that's worse.

I can't begin to imagine why she'd be listed with Chaplains and HSOs, unless it's a secondary duty and
this isn't her main job.

[SunDog]

Whomever is responsible for enforcing the vendor contracts needs to be fired or relieved, and Vanguard should
have some contractual tenants that penalize them when they produce products of unacceptable quality or
which do not adhere to specifications.

As to the "chain" - let's not kid ourselves or play games.  There is no "chain" in this regard.  Real, serious
issues die on the vine all the time because someone in the "chain" can't be bothered.  This kind of thing
isn't the responsibility of anyone below NHQ, so why would anyone below that level waste their precious
CAP time?  Talk about windmills.

What a classic CAPTalk over reaction to a trivial uniform issue.

Seriously, here is a discrepancy on a uniform item used by less than 2% of the membership that went unnoticed for decades.  And somebody should be fired?

Weren't you the guy who said:

Any Wing CC who views the background color of an insignia produced by our sole-source vendor as a priority should be removed immediately.

You seem to have a limited number of tools in your Leadership Tool Box, sir.   

There is an OPR for this, they should fix it and anything else related.

Yup, absolutely.  Someone just needs to tell them about it.  Which is what the chain is for.

Really, just takes the briefest of notes - "Hey, I was looking at Vanguard Item # CAP 0900A, the enameled seal for the mess dress, and the blue background appears to be in conflict with the official description of the seal in CAPR 900-1, which prescribes a "silver gray."  Just thought you'd like to know."

This needs to be fixed, but let's all retain a sense of perspective here.

Ah, Ned, now you done it. . .you are too articulate, too clearly intelligent, to really believe Eclipse is going off over this one issuein particular. C'mon, man!

Eclipse annoys me heartily (nothing personal, we just B diffrent tempers), but he was obviously speaking to the general state of CAP management affiairs, with this issue as an illustrative example of the bigger picture.  You're choosing to pretend he's ranting about a dinner plate. Shame!

Use that intellect to influence direction; loose about 1/2 the rabbit holes, dead processes, abandoned initiatives, forms, pubs, orphaned efforts, and sundry time wasting-no value added junk. Then perhaps some focus can be put on effective mgmnt of what remains.

Hire a BPR outfit, or use summary execution, or do something to tighten this thing up. . .

[SunDog]

I agree with Ned. 

The measure of an organization is what it accomplishes, not what it does along the way to produce that accomplishment. Bob has missed the mark in saying that trivia like seal background tells us something important about our organization. I agree it's a snafu and shows that we get lots of little administrative things wrong and can do better in that area. But, mission accomplishment is the metric. These aren't the droids we're looking for.

I gotta disagree.  I can't speak to CP or AE; I do MP and aircrew.  We can't keep pilots largely because of the bilizzard of administrivia. We don't get "lot's of little administrative things wrong", we get lot's of big administrative things wrong. We're burdened with useless process, and we waste people's time.

Waste. Time. Our finite resource. You want my help on Sunday? After a full day on Saturday that should have been a half day, but for the goofy, pointless hoops I had to jump through?

We aren't nearly as mission capable as could be, largely because we aren't focused, aren't efficient with our time, and haven't culled the trivial and concentrated on the essential

final rant.

[NIN]

 that is a good point. One of the key aspects of volunteer management that I always try to follow as a commander was do not waste my people's time.

we do a lot of things pretty well. Or at least really thoroughly. But sometimes I wonder if we're not a little too thorough, or too hidebound, in what we are trying to accomplish.

I get making sure people are qualified. And safe. But sometimes the flaming hoops get to be a little bit crazy.

The pendulum can swing the other way as well. Using professional development training as an example, it is easy to say " oh yeah, let's cut that two day course down to one." then all the sudden the training you're delivering is really not that effective or even useful. You just taken a training activity that was pretty important ( sometimes ) and turned it into a box checking exercise. what wastes a volunteer's time more? Traveling to a training event where we are trying to cram 16 hours of training in to 8  in the name of efficiency, or actually executing the 16 hour training schedule as it was designed? ( I have seen it go both ways. I have been to two day long training events that were so poorly run that we could have got everything we needed in the first six hours. I have also been 21 day training event that we're still poorly run that the students barely had a chance to say their name, let alone ask a question. A lot of it is finding the balance of effective use of the time and not wasting time)

As a parent with two kids, neither of which are in CAP, my time is an incredibly finite resource these days. I only have a certain number of weekends to devote to CAP anymore. And most of those com somewhere between the first of november and the  first of April, so I want to make sure that I get the most bang for my buck, or day spent.

I realize this has suddenly turned a uniforms thread to something else ( shocking ), but it does speak to the continued viability of our volunteer force in the face of increasing schedule pressures from our membership. It is one thing to have dedicated members who only do CAP. I think we all know that we need a much broader membership base than that. A lot of what we could be doing, both at the local and national levels, is working to identify processes that need to be streamlined, eliminated, or modernized.

Wasn't there a committee formed a few years ago to look at Paperwork Reduction? I mean paperwork is one thing, but just looking at all of our processes would be key.



As a brief example, I know a member who recently applied for and received equivalency for his military training in the professional development program. He had to jump through a whole series of hoops that were not in the regulation to accomplish this. That entire process that he went through could have been far more simple had somebody just said "hey, whoa, what is the simplest way to accomplish that?" Instead  of taking a couple days, the process stretched into a couple weeks with several iterations of emailing documents around and people saying that the process as described in the manual wasn't the way things should go. Come on, this is not rocket surgery. This is a black and white, fairly straightforward, process that has been in place for years. Why can't we do it the absolute simplest way and stop wasting peoples time?

[ColonelJack]

I realize this has suddenly turned a uniforms thread to something else ( shocking ),

I think that's against the rules here.  If it isn't, it ought to be.   

Wasn't there a committee formed a few years ago to look at Paperwork Reduction? I mean paperwork is one thing, but just looking at all of our processes would be key.

Several years ago, there was a government-wide attempt to reduce paperwork.  It was actually called the "Paperwork Reduction Act."  All it did was lead to more paperwork to ensure that the paperwork reduction act was being followed.

Your Federal Government at work, folks.

Jack

[MSG Mac]

As a brief example, I know a member who recently applied for and received equivalency for his military training in the professional development program. He had to jump through a whole series of hoops that were not in the regulation to accomplish this. That entire process that he went through could have been far more simple had somebody just said "hey, whoa, what is the simplest way to accomplish that?" Instead  of taking a couple days, the process stretched into a couple weeks with several iterations of emailing documents around and people saying that the process as described in the manual wasn't the way things should go. Come on, this is not rocket surgery. This is a black and white, fairly straightforward, process that has been in place for years. Why can't we do it the absolute simplest way and stop wasting peoples time?

I've had to put in PD equivalents and never had a problem. get a copy of the diploma, or other proof of attendance and send it to the PD folks. If it's a course not listed in 50-17, just send a course description.

[Storm Chaser]

That's always been a "simple" process for me. I just call/e-mail NHQ directly and they take care of it quickly. If you try to use the chain of command for this, it can take weeks. Funny thing, CAP requires the use of the chain of command for smaller issues much more than the Air Force does. In the Air Force, many functions are decentralized and I'm not required to go through the squadron or group to get things resolved.

[Ratatouille]

I agree with Ned. 

The measure of an organization is what it accomplishes, not what it does along the way to produce that accomplishment. Bob has missed the mark in saying that trivia like seal background tells us something important about our organization. I agree it's a snafu and shows that we get lots of little administrative things wrong and can do better in that area. But, mission accomplishment is the metric. These aren't the droids we're looking for.

I gotta disagree.  I can't speak to CP or AE; I do MP and aircrew.  We can't keep pilots largely because of the bilizzard of administrivia. We don't get "lot's of little administrative things wrong", we get lot's of big administrative things wrong. We're burdened with useless process, and we waste people's time.

Waste. Time. Our finite resource. You want my help on Sunday? After a full day on Saturday that should have been a half day, but for the goofy, pointless hoops I had to jump through?

We aren't nearly as mission capable as could be, largely because we aren't focused, aren't efficient with our time, and haven't culled the trivial and concentrated on the essential

final rant.

As a ground-pounder, former CC and now a Cadet Programs Officer, I can absolutely say that the paperwork is unnecessary to the point of ridiculousness.

Take the new Medical and Emergency Contact forms. One of the uses for those forms is for it to be in your personnel file at your Squadron HQ. So let's say the bacon burgers finally get to me and I go into cardiac arrest during a Squadron Meeting. Do we really expect someone, in the middle of giving me CPR, to go unlock the filing cabinet, go through the 1/4 ream of paper in my file, and pull out my medical forms before the ambulance gets there? Do we expect the Paramedics to wait before packing me up and going on their way? Do we expect the hospital to read some random form from who knows where filled out who knows when for my blood type instead of cross typing my blood itself? Will they try to bill the insurance listed on this potentially years old form, or will they look through my wallet for my card or wait until my parents or girlfriend get there and ask them?

Does my Squadron Commander or whoever else has access to file need to know that I had ear infections 20+ years ago, or asthma in fifth grade? Does he need to know that I have Blue Cross and what my insurance policy number is? Or that I am taking Valtrex? And does it really take 4 pages of documents to get the information needed to call my parents if my plane goes down?

Don't even get me started on the forms a CC has to fill out annually. Every year Squadrons are required to fill out a Contributed Facilities Worksheet (CAPF 174). My Squadron met at the same place as our Group HQ, which our Group gets for free from our County Airport. At the very top of the form there is a checkbox for whether you have exclusive use of the facility. Per the form, if you check "No", you don't have to fill out the rest of the form.  Since 2 squadrons and Group meet there, I checked "NO" and submitted it as is. Wing bounced it back because I didn't fill out the part of the form that the form itself says I can leave blank. I asked WTF, but Wing said to fill out the part I didn't have to and my spirit had long since been crushed so I did what they wanted. Mind you, this is information Wing would already have from the identical form filled out by Group. And out Group is in the same building (but different wing) as our Wing HQ, so they knew what was up. Sure, I could have the form saved and just print it out again every year, but forms are sometimes changed, and if I have to take the time to check if the form online is new, I'm already halfway to having the thing filled out. And even then, occasionally Wing decides they will do a consolidated form and have us fill out an equivalent to CAPF 174 on an Excel file along with a bunch of other CAP and Wing forms. Naturally this Excel file changes every time someone and Wing notices a mistake or wants the information in a different way. CAPF 174 is just one form, but this is on top of all the other paperwork, not to mention actually running a @#(&@ Squadron!

[Ratatouille]

For the record, Valtrex is just the first medication that came to mind, not something I'm actually taking  :angel:

[THRAWN]

I agree with Ned. 

The measure of an organization is what it accomplishes, not what it does along the way to produce that accomplishment. Bob has missed the mark in saying that trivia like seal background tells us something important about our organization. I agree it's a snafu and shows that we get lots of little administrative things wrong and can do better in that area. But, mission accomplishment is the metric. These aren't the droids we're looking for.

I gotta disagree.  I can't speak to CP or AE; I do MP and aircrew.  We can't keep pilots largely because of the bilizzard of administrivia. We don't get "lot's of little administrative things wrong", we get lot's of big administrative things wrong. We're burdened with useless process, and we waste people's time.

Waste. Time. Our finite resource. You want my help on Sunday? After a full day on Saturday that should have been a half day, but for the goofy, pointless hoops I had to jump through?

We aren't nearly as mission capable as could be, largely because we aren't focused, aren't efficient with our time, and haven't culled the trivial and concentrated on the essential

final rant.

As a ground-pounder, former CC and now a Cadet Programs Officer, I can absolutely say that the paperwork is unnecessary to the point of ridiculousness.

Take the new Medical and Emergency Contact forms. One of the uses for those forms is for it to be in your personnel file at your Squadron HQ. So let's say the bacon burgers finally get to me and I go into cardiac arrest during a Squadron Meeting. Do we really expect someone, in the middle of giving me CPR, to go unlock the filing cabinet, go through the 1/4 ream of paper in my file, and pull out my medical forms before the ambulance gets there? Do we expect the Paramedics to wait before packing me up and going on their way? Do we expect the hospital to read some random form from who knows where filled out who knows when for my blood type instead of cross typing my blood itself? Will they try to bill the insurance listed on this potentially years old form, or will they look through my wallet for my card or wait until my parents or girlfriend get there and ask them?

Does my Squadron Commander or whoever else has access to file need to know that I had ear infections 20+ years ago, or asthma in fifth grade? Does he need to know that I have Blue Cross and what my insurance policy number is? Or that I am taking Valtrex? And does it really take 4 pages of documents to get the information needed to call my parents if my plane goes down?

Don't even get me started on the forms a CC has to fill out annually. Every year Squadrons are required to fill out a Contributed Facilities Worksheet (CAPF 174). My Squadron met at the same place as our Group HQ, which our Group gets for free from our County Airport. At the very top of the form there is a checkbox for whether you have exclusive use of the facility. Per the form, if you check "No", you don't have to fill out the rest of the form.  Since 2 squadrons and Group meet there, I checked "NO" and submitted it as is. Wing bounced it back because I didn't fill out the part of the form that the form itself says I can leave blank. I asked WTF, but Wing said to fill out the part I didn't have to and my spirit had long since been crushed so I did what they wanted. Mind you, this is information Wing would already have from the identical form filled out by Group. And out Group is in the same building (but different wing) as our Wing HQ, so they knew what was up. Sure, I could have the form saved and just print it out again every year, but forms are sometimes changed, and if I have to take the time to check if the form online is new, I'm already halfway to having the thing filled out. And even then, occasionally Wing decides they will do a consolidated form and have us fill out an equivalent to CAPF 174 on an Excel file along with a bunch of other CAP and Wing forms. Naturally this Excel file changes every time someone and Wing notices a mistake or wants the information in a different way. CAPF 174 is just one form, but this is on top of all the other paperwork, not to mention actually running a @#(&@ Squadron!

The paperwork is all part of running a "@#(&@ squadron". Couple easy fixes:

1. Keep the 174 from previous years, and just check the form date. If that hasn't changed, submit. EACH unit is required to submit the form. That means each chartered entity. It takes about 5 minutes to complete and submit.

(Before I go on...explain this.....And out Group is in the same building (but different wing) as our Wing HQ, so they knew what was up....how is your group in the same building as your wing hq, but it's a different wing?)

2. Take the 161 and make it page one of all of your 45 and 66's. No searching if the info is needed, it's right there. And it's a lot better than previous editions.

3. Have your admin shop set uip a schedule to review the info on the 161. Once a year, on the members birthday, pull the file, make any changes, don't look at it again unless it's needed. Make sure your members know that they are responsible for the info, and if there are changes, they need to provide a new form.

4. Yes, the EMS folks will look at the form. It's better than you standing there stammering about how you don't know if Cadet Tenthumbs has any allergies or is on any medication.

[LSThiker]

(Before I go on...explain this.....And out Group is in the same building (but different wing) as our Wing HQ, so they knew what was up....how is your group in the same building as your wing hq, but it's a different wing?)

I think he/she means different wing of the building, not a different CAP wing.

[Eclipse]

4. Yes, the EMS folks will look at the form. It's better than you standing there stammering about how you don't know if Cadet Tenthumbs has any allergies or is on any medication.

EMS isn't going to wait or care for you to open a file drawer and look up medical history.   Any allergies or medication
issues that are life-threatening enough to be needed by EMS should be on a medic alert tag or tattoo, not in a drawer.

They may ask about allergies in passing as they are loading up the member into the ambulance, and from there it's not
CAP's problem any more.  No one in that case cares if you are lactose intolerant or allergic to cats.

At all major activities and ES functions, the emergency contact form is supposed to be on the member's person.
Having it anywhere else is basically useless, and while I don't personally care about that kind of nonsense, since privacy no
longer exists in the way most people think it does, it does open the door to those conversations.

CAP won't be getting anything on these forms from me any more.  They have no need or use for the information
and it's a waste of my time.  They certainly have absolutely no need for my medical insurance information or my GP's name, period.
That information isn't needed until you are either admitted or paying a bill, and in either case at that point I am either conscious,
dead, or a loved one is involved, but CAP isn't on that call list.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I have much of my pertinent medical history (including medications taken and the doctors that prescribe them) in an "Emergency Contacts" section of my cell phone, which I am very rarely without.  The section also includes a Do Not Resuscitate order and how to contact my pastor, if necessary.

The new CAPF161 is reinventing the wheel (CAPF60) when it did not need to be reinvented.

[Ratatouille]

I agree with Ned. 

The measure of an organization is what it accomplishes, not what it does along the way to produce that accomplishment. Bob has missed the mark in saying that trivia like seal background tells us something important about our organization. I agree it's a snafu and shows that we get lots of little administrative things wrong and can do better in that area. But, mission accomplishment is the metric. These aren't the droids we're looking for.

I gotta disagree.  I can't speak to CP or AE; I do MP and aircrew.  We can't keep pilots largely because of the bilizzard of administrivia. We don't get "lot's of little administrative things wrong", we get lot's of big administrative things wrong. We're burdened with useless process, and we waste people's time.

Waste. Time. Our finite resource. You want my help on Sunday? After a full day on Saturday that should have been a half day, but for the goofy, pointless hoops I had to jump through?

We aren't nearly as mission capable as could be, largely because we aren't focused, aren't efficient with our time, and haven't culled the trivial and concentrated on the essential

final rant.

As a ground-pounder, former CC and now a Cadet Programs Officer, I can absolutely say that the paperwork is unnecessary to the point of ridiculousness.

Take the new Medical and Emergency Contact forms. One of the uses for those forms is for it to be in your personnel file at your Squadron HQ. So let's say the bacon burgers finally get to me and I go into cardiac arrest during a Squadron Meeting. Do we really expect someone, in the middle of giving me CPR, to go unlock the filing cabinet, go through the 1/4 ream of paper in my file, and pull out my medical forms before the ambulance gets there? Do we expect the Paramedics to wait before packing me up and going on their way? Do we expect the hospital to read some random form from who knows where filled out who knows when for my blood type instead of cross typing my blood itself? Will they try to bill the insurance listed on this potentially years old form, or will they look through my wallet for my card or wait until my parents or girlfriend get there and ask them?

Does my Squadron Commander or whoever else has access to file need to know that I had ear infections 20+ years ago, or asthma in fifth grade? Does he need to know that I have Blue Cross and what my insurance policy number is? Or that I am taking Valtrex? And does it really take 4 pages of documents to get the information needed to call my parents if my plane goes down?

Don't even get me started on the forms a CC has to fill out annually. Every year Squadrons are required to fill out a Contributed Facilities Worksheet (CAPF 174). My Squadron met at the same place as our Group HQ, which our Group gets for free from our County Airport. At the very top of the form there is a checkbox for whether you have exclusive use of the facility. Per the form, if you check "No", you don't have to fill out the rest of the form.  Since 2 squadrons and Group meet there, I checked "NO" and submitted it as is. Wing bounced it back because I didn't fill out the part of the form that the form itself says I can leave blank. I asked WTF, but Wing said to fill out the part I didn't have to and my spirit had long since been crushed so I did what they wanted. Mind you, this is information Wing would already have from the identical form filled out by Group. And out Group is in the same building (but different wing) as our Wing HQ, so they knew what was up. Sure, I could have the form saved and just print it out again every year, but forms are sometimes changed, and if I have to take the time to check if the form online is new, I'm already halfway to having the thing filled out. And even then, occasionally Wing decides they will do a consolidated form and have us fill out an equivalent to CAPF 174 on an Excel file along with a bunch of other CAP and Wing forms. Naturally this Excel file changes every time someone and Wing notices a mistake or wants the information in a different way. CAPF 174 is just one form, but this is on top of all the other paperwork, not to mention actually running a @#(&@ Squadron!

The paperwork is all part of running a "@#(&@ squadron". Couple easy fixes:

1. Keep the 174 from previous years, and just check the form date. If that hasn't changed, submit. EACH unit is required to submit the form. That means each chartered entity. It takes about 5 minutes to complete and submit.

(Before I go on...explain this.....And out Group is in the same building (but different wing) as our Wing HQ, so they knew what was up....how is your group in the same building as your wing hq, but it's a different wing?)

2. Take the 161 and make it page one of all of your 45 and 66's. No searching if the info is needed, it's right there. And it's a lot better than previous editions.

3. Have your admin shop set uip a schedule to review the info on the 161. Once a year, on the members birthday, pull the file, make any changes, don't look at it again unless it's needed. Make sure your members know that they are responsible for the info, and if there are changes, they need to provide a new form.

4. Yes, the EMS folks will look at the form. It's better than you standing there stammering about how you don't know if Cadet Tenthumbs has any allergies or is on any medication.

1. Hunting down the form to check the date is already half of the work to fill out a form providing Wing with redundant information. There is also the issue that despite what the form says (Don't fill out Part B if you don't have exclusive use of the property), Wing still makes me fill out the entire form.  LSThiker is right. My Squadron meets at our Group's HQ, which is in a different wing of the same building as Wing HQ. That matters little, since we don't have exclusive use, which means we shouldn't have to fill out the full CAPF 174 per the form itself.

2. It takes a non-zero amount of time to go to the room with the personnel file cabinet, find the key or get the combination entered, find the file, and bring it to wherever Cadet Nicekid went down. Go ahead and time yourself doing this, and multiply it by two because you're freaking out because one of your Cadets' heart just arrested. In a real no-@#&* emergency EMS is not going to sit around waiting for you to do this before packing up Nicekid.

3. And why does my Admin Officer need to know who my primary care physician is, or that I had asthma, or whether I have health insurance or not? CAP doesn't pay for my doctor's bills and doesn't require I be particularly healthy to participate, so what business is it of theirs who would pay for my ER visit if I drop, or that I was born with a tail?

4. If a Cadet is arresting, seizing, or something like that, EMS is not going to wait around. They are going to pack him up into the ambulance and be on their way to the hospital with the quickness. Most EMS crews are two people. Once they are in the ambulance, one will drive and the other will be treating. The one treating is not going to stop treating so he can read a CAPF 160 with 46 (yes, 46!) different checkboxes on the off-chance he will somehow connect Nicekid's past constipation (!) with his current condition. As a former EMT, yes, it's nice to know a persons' allergies, but not knowing is not the end of the world. Penicillin and Sulfa (the medication allergies I heard most often) are, as far as I know, not drugs given in a pre-hospital setting. At least half the time when I asked a patient what their allergies were they said "seasonal" or something equally useless.

The paperwork demand in CAP is getting to be a tad ridiculous. There is so much of it that I doubt most of it gets more than a cursory review before it is put in a filing cabinet and never seen again until (maybe) an SUI. If the data isn't being used in any meaningful way, what is the point of collecting it? Is there a benefit to keeping every message page from every radio operator from a SAREX that happened eight months ago? Even if it all gets scanned in somewhere, will anyone actually go back and read it?

It seems to me that the increase in paperwork has to do with creation of fiefdoms more than anything. It reminds me a lot of high school. Ms. Filkenstein would give us 4 hours of reading due the next day for Global History, because Global History was super important and we totally needed to know this ASAP. Except Fr. Smith gave us 3 hours of reading for English because English is also super important, and we also have a Chem Lab Report due because Chemistry is the basis of everything. So now I have 10 hours of homework, all from teachers who think only their class matters, and somewhere in there I should probably sleep so I can stay awake through the next day's spanish class. It' like that in CAP. Chaplain Corp wants you to fill out a bunch of forms, ES wants forms, DDR wants forms, CP wants forms, Safety wants forms and a regularly-scheduled briefing, and to watch the same video for the 6th time since you joined CAP, etc, etc for every department of CAP, all seemingly forgetting that at some point you need some time to get actual missions done.

[Ratatouille]

4. Yes, the EMS folks will look at the form. It's better than you standing there stammering about how you don't know if Cadet Tenthumbs has any allergies or is on any medication.

EMS isn't going to wait or care for you to open a file drawer and look up medical history.   Any allergies or medication
issues that are life-threatening enough to be needed by EMS should be on a medic alert tag or tattoo, not in a drawer.

They may ask about allergies in passing as they are loading up the member into the ambulance, and from there it's not
CAP's problem any more.  No one in that case cares if you are lactose intolerant or allergic to cats.

At all major activities and ES functions, the emergency contact form is supposed to be on the member's person.
Having it anywhere else is basically useless, and while I don't personally care about that kind of nonsense, since privacy no
longer exists in the way most people think it does, it does open the door to those conversations.

CAP won't be getting anything on these forms from me any more.  They have no need or use for the information
and it's a waste of my time.  They certainly have absolutely no need for my medical insurance information or my GP's name, period.
That information isn't needed until you are either admitted or paying a bill, and in either case at that point I am either conscious,
dead, or a loved one is involved, but CAP isn't on that call list.

This is one of the very very few times I agree completely with an Eclipse post. It is far too early in the day for something this freaky, and I am all out of coffee.

[SunDog]

Yep, just don't do it. . .absent any real enforcement, or follow-up, it'll fall through the cracks like so many other pointless mandates. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Eclipse is on the money on this one.

The CAPF 161, and especially the 160, are almost the epitome of over-intrusiveness.

I will keep a 161 on my person and one for my squadron CC - period.

I already lost out on an opportunity because I did not want to do a CAPF160.  I missed a squadron trip to WPAFB because I would not submit one.

[JeffDG]

Eclipse is on the money on this one.

The CAPF 161, and especially the 160, are almost the epitome of over-intrusiveness.

I will keep a 161 on my person and one for my squadron CC - period.

I already lost out on an opportunity because I did not want to do a CAPF160.  I missed a squadron trip to WPAFB because I would not submit one.

Submit one with most of the fields listed as "NYB"

If asked, simply say "None of your business, and why, pray tell, are you reading my confidential medical form?"

[Ratatouille]

Yep, just don't do it. . .absent any real enforcement, or follow-up, it'll fall through the cracks like so many other pointless mandates.

I understand the sentiment, but let's say I participate in an activity where Wing or whoever says participants need to submit one. The OIC is my buddy, who understands why nobody needs to know about the inhaler I had for a month in 7th grade, and doesn't care if I submit one. Now something unrelated goes wrong, or some Wing muckety-muck demands to see the paperwork the OIC is holding. Now my buddy is taking heat because I didn't want to submit a stupid form. I've had the unfortunate experience of seeing Wing use paperwork goofs to railroad those who don't toe the line, and I certainly wouldn't want that to happen to anyone I care about.

Lying on the form is not a good idea in case the thing actually ends up being used at a hospital, so I'm not going to do that. So I fill out the stupid form, not because it serves any purpose, but because it's easier than not doing it.

If the forms we are filling out are only being done to avoid getting hassled, then what's the point? We might as well just spend all day filling out TPS Reports (with the revised cover sheet, of course).

[Eclipse]

There's a difference between "lying" and simply not providing information that is either non existent or none of CAP's business.

You also don't have to refuse to complete the form.  I have no issue with my wife's contact information for emergencies,
Just as "19 Paul says it all" for some police stations, N/A in the fields is an appropriate answer for everything else.

[CAPAPRN]

CAPR 160 3-2 also states that we should ONLY collect needed information, and does not prescribe that every situation needs a form 160, and the 161 is simply required to be on the person.  The 160 is really designed for encampment ("longer duration activities") specifically for the cadets at encampment, who may need a minute-clinic visit for a sprained ankle and the form can speed up history taking etc. (yes, mom will be called also). I don't know why a project officer would want a SM to submit a 160 for an airshow or a AFB visit- that is not required. That said, yes I agree with everyone that the form is poorly designed and intrusive, and there really should be a separate CADET encampment form, so that we aren't asking seniors intrusive questions. BTW, I am Master rated in health services, VP of the medical staff at a state VA hospital (as well as clinical faculty at Yale), have staffed encampments,  and NOBODY at NHQ ever asked me (or anybody else that I know and I know a lot of the senior HSO's including at least one who ran encampments) my opinion on this issue.

[Eclipse]

who may need a minute-clinic visit for a sprained ankle

A what now?

[CAPAPRN]

Urgent care visit- as in a visit to an outside provider that is not an ER for a non life threatening condition. Maybe minute-clinic is a regional term. - CW

[LSThiker]

Okay, wow.  So much misunderstanding of the HS Program and the CAPF 160/161.  So let me actually put the regulation citation:

Advise members to complete CAPF 160, CAP Member Health History Form, and CAPF 161, Emergency Information, annually or sooner if the information changes, and advise members to carry the forms in case of emergency while on CAP activities. Units will not maintain, store or require use of these forms for day-to-day use. The use and carrying of these forms is not always required, but members are encouraged to carry them for reference during activities for illness or emergency. Some activity or encampment commanders may require forms to be provided in advance for planning purposes. Health service officers advise these commanders on safe participation of members after reviewing CAP 160 series forms and assist in making needed preparations at an activity to make participation as safe as possible for members. The ultimate decision for participation in any activity rests with the commander.

So units are not to maintain the CAPF 160.  So the scenario of the EMTs waiting for someone to grab a CAPF 160 that is locked up at the squadron is already based on a false premise.  The proper use of the CAPF 160 is to be maintained on the person.  Some commanders may require it, realistically this is for encampment and NCSA type activities, for planning purposes.  It is not for dealing with emergencies at that activity.  You are not required to disclose any health related material.  The disclosure of that material is up to the person volunteering to disclose it. 

Despite what some people (not necessarily here) want to believe, CAP is not a healthcare or rescue organization.

Edit:  It took a little time to find the picture, but things like this, while noble and great, should not occur even if he is an EMT-P:

http://capblog.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/cap_jtfkatrina_714_sept_05_williams_0153.jpg

NOBODY at NHQ ever asked me (or anybody else that I know and I know a lot of the senior HSO's including at least one who ran encampments) my opinion on this issue.

You make it sound as though they were supposed to.  Frankly put, nobody at NHQ is obligated to ask you for your opinion.  NHQ has its own chief medical officer on staff and 8 region HSOs.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I will keep a 160 on my person.  However, I do not see why Someone At The Top felt the need to replace the CAPF 60, which I saw nothing wrong with.

Yes, I did get excluded from a visit to the Air Force Museum because I looked at the 161 and honestly could not believe how intrusive it was - especially for a day trip not even staying overnight.

However, the squadron CC required one from everyone - cadets AND seniors - and did not give a choice.  I cannot say what he would have done had I taken JeffDG's suggestion, but having known him as I did he probably would have asked me "Captain, what are you trying to do?" and would have been excluded from the trip anyway.

I have several disabilities that, if the 161 is filled out as intended, would require supporting documentation that would have probably led to a 10-page long form.

[SunDog]

A quiet word alone with the CC.  Tell him to read the rule and get his act together, or you'll help him get educated via the IG.

Fantasy of course. . .depending on your local politics, they may throw you under the nearest bus.  I'd tell him to pound sand; then again, I'm not renewing. . .

Just fill it with N/A on anything you don't want on it,  and write it off as more silly nonsense you gotta put up with to play.  If someone wants to collect it, be sure the first letter of your last name is illegible or incorrect, and swap a vowel out - Grayson becomes $reyson. I heard a rumour that some IT savvy folks, not being confident of NHQ security of member PII, "accidently"  mis-type their birthdates.  And also "correct" their inadvertant errors on home addresses annually, just before renewing and membership card delivery.