Lets face it, some of our senior members are challenged in performing in tasks that most could perform. In some instances, they will require constant supervision by another senior member.
However, what they lack in aptitude, they do display a very positive attitude towards the organization and are likely to do the very best they can, with their limitations.
Should we have some sort of aptitude test similiar to the the armed forces, in order to determine IF a senior member should be allowed to join the program as an active senior member ???
I realize that this is controversial, BUT if you have too large a senior staff that is low in aptitude, the overall unit's effectiveness could be affected greatly.
Comments :-\
RM
No.
A. What test, who gives it, who grades it, who is qualified to interpet it?
B. There is a job for everyone....even if it is just holding the door open for the rest of us...even people with mental and physical handicaps have a place in CAP.
C. There are already mechnisms in place to keep those who should not be in CAP out and others to make sure that those who are not ready for higher responsibilities do not get them....Now if we can just get our members to use them consistatnly?! :o
That's a pretty bold (and fairly rude) statement about some of our volunteers. But that aside:
Civil Air Patrol already has unit membership committees, and all senior member applications must be signed off by a unit commander. The membership committee reviews each applicant comprehensively, including their aptitude and ability to contribute effectively to CAP.
If a unit's membership committee and commander aren't effectively screening applicants, your issue is with that unit and its failure to properly implement the existing system and uphold its obligations. Creating tests and busy work for the rest of the organization doesn't solve local problems of failing to apply appropriate standards.
^I just had to giggle. I present to you a few questions from the "The Civil Air Patrol Aptitude Test"!
GOOD LUCK!
1. Vanguard is:
A. The forefront of a movement.
B. Something CAP puts on their vans to keep them safe.
C. A deodorant.
D. The cause of all evil in the world because they charge me too much for shipping on my Master Rating Historian Badge.
CORRECT ANSWER (ACCORDING TO CAPTALK) IS D.
2. In CAP, uniforms are:
A. To be worn correctly per regulations.
B. Something that gives members a sense of pride.
C. A reminder of our ties to the USAF.
D. Either too many or too few and something that needs to be discussed at great length.
CORRECT ANSWER (ACCORDING TO CAPTALK) IS D.
3. You are asked to pay your national CAP dues. You:
A. Quietly pay them because you are happy to support your organization.
B. Grumble a little but understand why they are necessary.
C. Think they are too high but you'd rather not go raise more money.
D. Betch and moan to anyone who will listen that they are too high and an insult because CAP should plant a money tree but yet not enter into any licensing agreements that would send money back to the organization because Vanguard is the cause of all evil in the world.
CORRECT ANSWER (ACCORDING TO CAPTALK) IS D.
LOL ^^^
No tests needed, just use the existing regulations properly.
Plus, there really can be something for everyone to do. If someone needs help and has to be supervised, well, then find them something else to do. They shouldn't have really gotten there in the first place.
Quote from: a2capt on April 29, 2010, 01:04:30 AM
LOL ^^^
No tests needed, just use the existing regulations properly.
Plus, there really can be something for everyone to do. If someone needs help and has to be supervised, well, then find them something else to do. They shouldn't have really gotten there in the first place.
You know looking at CAPR 39-2, there isn't too much in there about the "quality" of the senior member, other than screen outs for criminal history, non citizenship, bad miltary discharge, etc.
In my opinion, it would be VERY difficult for a Squadron Membership Board to recommend to the commander not to accept a senior member into the program. This is VERY subjective, and not objective. That can get you in legal trouble quickly. So from a practical standpoint IF anyone applies for senior CAP membership, unless they have the specific disqualifying factors listed, it's doubtful they would be refused membership.
I would agree that you could take the challenged senior members and just put them as an assistant to whoever, BUT the reality of this is they would never be able to perform the complete volunteer job function for which they are the assistant. It is a sad reality, and as I stated before the ones that I have come in contact with are good people, trying their best, and having a great positive attitude. :(
Again I'm only looking for an "objective" assessment on a potential senior member, which is fair to CAP as an organization as well as the potential member :angel: HOWEVER, I'm also a realist, and we will always have this volunteer management issue to address tactfully.
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 29, 2010, 02:42:40 AMThis is VERY subjective, and not objective. That can get you in legal trouble quickly.
Nope!
Membership in CAP is a privlage not a right.
As a commander I can keep you from joining for the simple reason of "I don't like you"....and so long as I am not doing it because of one of the protected classes....there is very little that an applicant can do.
Let them sue.....
Brings back memories from a fire department membership termination hearing...
"Being an [Alpha Hotel] doesn't make you a member of a protected class." Appeal denied by commissioners.
WHAAAAT??
A CAP ASVAB??
Are you guys for real?
How about NHQ signing that one up, a trip to MEPS,maybe a paycheck?
Who's dreamin this crap up??
Entirely tooooooo much time on peoples hands
Hope you "sell" that idea, along with the "free" flying
HAHAHHAHAA ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: lordmonar on April 29, 2010, 02:50:17 AM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 29, 2010, 02:42:40 AMThis is VERY subjective, and not objective. That can get you in legal trouble quickly.
Nope!
Membership in CAP is a privlage not a right.
As a commander I can keep you from joining for the simple reason of "I don't like you"....and so long as I am not doing it because of one of the protected classes....there is very little that an applicant can do.
Let them sue.....
Well, now you've got my interest up. How many senior members applications have you denied that weren't specifically listed as a disqualifing factor in CAPR 39-2, para 3-2.... ??? Interestingly it states that all membership applications must be accepted by the unit.
I think you are on very weak ground legally IF you decided you didn't like someone, you just wouldn't let them join your unit.
I don't think any for profit company or non profit organization really wants to get sued by anyone if it can be avoided, because of the overall costs and potential negative press. And also remember, the individual may very well come after you directly and CAP, and if you've violated the regulation, you'll be the one paying everything.
I also think most of us will give a new volunteer adult member a chance to prove themselves, even if we have initial doubts. If the member has a positive attitude, I think most of us would in fact keep them in the unit. Again there is no easy solution to this :(
RM
"I don't like you"
That really "cutting it" as a Sqdn CC??
Sure CAP is a privilege..... But that "I don't like you" bit is pretty extreme
Better a have a GOOD, STRONG legal standing to back that one up. Pretty lame for a Sqdn CC making a comment like that protected classes or not.
Luuuuuv to see that one in court
Better to see it some law print somewhere....but this is CAP where ANYTHING could be precedence (sp) setting just 'cuz CAPTalkers are big and tough and no the law like tha backs of their hands...... ::) ::) ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
@ RM
I don't know much about the structure of CAP, but as a military applicant I do know that aptitude tests (ASVAB, AFOQT, AFAST, etc) don't gauge leadership ability. In other words, I'm concerned that if a test were to be put in place, it wouldn't necessarily eliminate the need for close supervision of some members.
If you want a test though, maybe you should get together with tdepp. It looks like he's on to something.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 29, 2010, 03:36:37 AMWell, now you've got my interest up. How many senior members applications have you denied that weren't specifically listed as a disqualifing factor in CAPR 39-2, para 3-2.... ??? Interestingly it states that all membership applications must be accepted by the unit.
Two...one just recently. We held a membership board decided we did not like her, her life style...we took her daughter but not the mother. :D
QuoteI think you are on very weak ground legally IF you decided you didn't like someone, you just wouldn't let them join your unit.
Again nope.....it says right there in the regulations that membership is a privlage...the law cannot dictate to us who we admit to our ranks. They can only with hold money if we discriminate towards any of the protected classes.
QuoteI don't think any for profit company or non profit organization really wants to get sued by anyone if it can be avoided, because of the overall costs and potential negative press. And also remember, the individual may very well come after you directly and CAP, and if you've violated the regulation, you'll be the one paying everything.
They would have to show damages. Also CAP and Individuals have been sued over this sort of issue before and the courts have almost always ruled in CAP's favor.
Heck the courts still allow the Boy Scouts to ban Gays and Athiests.....
I am not knowledgable word for word as to what regs but the asy part:
Membership=privilege
All APPLICATIONS have to be accepted BUT that does not mean the squadron has to approve! (There's a difference between acceptance and approval)
Squadrons cannot discriminate age, sex, race, disability, marital and other protected classes.
I believe a squadron can turn down an application if they feel the individual would not be able to contribute?
turning down an application based on someone's lifestyle isn't discrimination as far as I can tell, kind of an odd thing to use basis for reasoning but isn't wrong.
I actually have been a participant in a legitimate discussion about finding ways to legitimately screen applicants in a similar fashion.
Yup.
Think about it: Whats more "fair" to the applicant?
1) an somewhat subjective or even capricious decision by either the commander or, in far fewer cases than the regulation suggests is required, a board; or
2) an objective test that is administered to ensure that an applicant meets a certain minimum level of capabilities.
Honestly, I've had plenty of people in my squadron (most of whom I'd inherited, but some who came to me before we had a membership board, as is specified in 39-2, and some who we just took cuz we wanted some bodies) who were, uh, how can I put this delicately? Lets just say that if you gave them an IQ test, the result might closely approximate the average yearly temperature for, say, San Diego.
The issue becomes: is this person equipped to be a productive member of the organization, or is he/she going to be a drain on the unit?
There was a gent I knew for a number of years. Great guy, willing to do anything. Really capable of doing .... nothing. He didn't even have a GED at 50, and while he had "great heart," his cognitive abilities were just not there. When I took over my unit in 1999, he was the unit finance officer. I took the unit on Veteran's Day. The finance report was not done. I asked him to get the records and I'd help him. The records arrived at the unit meeting in a plastic shopping bag. A pile of receipts, bank statements and chicken scratch. It took my wife and I two days to make heads or tails out of it on the kitchen counter. (then, it was off by a @#$# nickel.... Drove me _nuts_...)
This same gent was additionally assigned to my wing HQ as the "logistics officer." The wing administrator really did the job, as every time he touched the paperwork, he made it worse. Every time he went into the supply room, it got more confused. His "logistics" was limited to taking the HQ trash to the curb once a week and cutting the HQ grass during the summer.
In my unit, I made him the unit communications officer. Because he was a ham radio guy and showed an aptitude there.
But he was incapable of conducting the training (he couldn't stand for long periods of time, and he had, well, I don't honestly know if you'd call it a speech impediment, but he spoke oddly, and made it hard for cadets to understand him), and when I asked him to coordinate the training, he wasn't able to get the concept of "forward planning." He'd come to the quarterly planning meetings with a sheaf of paper covered in scribbles, and no concrete plan as to how to get people in the unit to a specific training goal (their ROAs). My deputy commander for seniors had to do it for him.
He was a wicked nice guy, like I said, and a heart of gold for wanting to help/give/participate, but not only was he incapable of operating in the same environment as professional military officers or experienced seniors, but he actually detracted from the overall unit effectiveness because even though he was assigned one duty, literally 1-2 others had to pitch in and do the duty for him. (its like that old thing about wounding a guy on the battlefield instead of killing him. If you wound him, you take more people out of the fight trying to get him out of the line of fire or whatever..)
When I came back to command the unit a 2nd time, he had been inactive for awhile and showed up at a meeting one night. My deputy commander & I asked him what he wanted to do for the unit. His response was "Anything.." I pulled out the 20-1 and said "Joe, there isn't a duty position called 'Anything'... What is it that you want to do, and know that you can fulfill the duties of?" I sent him away with a copy of the 20-1 and asked him to think about what it was he thought he could do, and legitimately accomplish, and then come back to me and the deputy with a plan.
He came back with "Communications Officer." I'd been down this road with him, but I was willing to give it another shot with some appropriate controls in place. "OK, Joe," I said, "But what I want to see out of you is a yearly plan to train our cadets and seniors, and a plan to obtain comm gear for our van." (being located in the same town as Wing HQ, we seldom got "our own" stuff ... so we didn't have a comm shack, since we could use wing's)
He never came back to the unit with any kind of a plan, even though I'd coached him about it, continued to ask him to do it, showed him examples, pointed him at resources, etc.
Finally he just stopped showing up. But the sad thing was: he'd been in CAP for 10 years at this point. He'd bounced around between commanders and wing Chiefs of Staff for that entire time, and nobody would do anything about him. (well, he did go to Region Staff College, but he did not pass it..)
I think there should be a minimum level of aptitude to be a member of this organization. Our members don't come here and drink beer and march in a parade 3x per year like, say, the VFW or the Legion. We actually expect something out of them. And if they don't pack the gear to do the jobs, then why do we need them?
Quote from: mynetdude on April 29, 2010, 05:41:15 AM
I am not knowledgable word for word as to what regs but the asy part:
Membership=privilege
All APPLICATIONS have to be accepted BUT that does not mean the squadron has to approve! (There's a difference between acceptance and approval)
Squadrons cannot discriminate age, sex, race, disability, marital and other protected classes.
I believe a squadron can turn down an application if they feel the individual would not be able to contribute?
turning down an application based on someone's lifestyle isn't discrimination as far as I can tell, kind of an odd thing to use basis for reasoning but isn't wrong.
Well this is one of those cases were NET Speculation is not going to work.
Just to let you all know...the decision was not entered into lightly. We discussed and debated the pros and cons of accepting or denying this application.
Bottom line though is the the regulations give very little specific guidance.....and it would be very hard for someone to bring a successful case to court IMH-Nonlawyer-O.
We did what we thought was right for the overall program. If the applicant wants to sue....it is her right to seek redress...but we stand by our decision.
Quote from: NIN on April 29, 2010, 12:12:49 PM
I actually have been a participant in a legitimate discussion about finding ways to legitimately screen applicants in a similar fashion.
Yup.
Think about it: Whats more "fair" to the applicant?
1) an somewhat subjective or even capricious decision by either the commander or, in far fewer cases than the regulation suggests is required, a board; or
2) an objective test that is administered to ensure that an applicant meets a certain minimum level of capabilities.
Honestly, I've had plenty of people in my squadron (most of whom I'd inherited, but some who came to me before we had a membership board, as is specified in 39-2, and some who we just took cuz we wanted some bodies) who were, uh, how can I put this delicately? Lets just say that if you gave them an IQ test, the result might closely approximate the average yearly temperature for, say, San Diego.
The issue becomes: is this person equipped to be a productive member of the organization, or is he/she going to be a drain on the unit?
There was a gent I knew for a number of years. Great guy, willing to do anything. Really capable of doing .... nothing. He didn't even have a GED at 50, and while he had "great heart," his cognitive abilities were just not there. When I took over my unit in 1999, he was the unit finance officer. I took the unit on Veteran's Day. The finance report was not done. I asked him to get the records and I'd help him. The records arrived at the unit meeting in a plastic shopping bag. A pile of receipts, bank statements and chicken scratch. It took my wife and I two days to make heads or tails out of it on the kitchen counter. (then, it was off by a @#$# nickel.... Drove me _nuts_...)
This same gent was additionally assigned to my wing HQ as the "logistics officer." The wing administrator really did the job, as every time he touched the paperwork, he made it worse. Every time he went into the supply room, it got more confused. His "logistics" was limited to taking the HQ trash to the curb once a week and cutting the HQ grass during the summer.
In my unit, I made him the unit communications officer. Because he was a ham radio guy and showed an aptitude there.
But he was incapable of conducting the training (he couldn't stand for long periods of time, and he had, well, I don't honestly know if you'd call it a speech impediment, but he spoke oddly, and made it hard for cadets to understand him), and when I asked him to coordinate the training, he wasn't able to get the concept of "forward planning." He'd come to the quarterly planning meetings with a sheaf of paper covered in scribbles, and no concrete plan as to how to get people in the unit to a specific training goal (their ROAs). My deputy commander for seniors had to do it for him.
He was a wicked nice guy, like I said, and a heart of gold for wanting to help/give/participate, but not only was he incapable of operating in the same environment as professional military officers or experienced seniors, but he actually detracted from the overall unit effectiveness because even though he was assigned one duty, literally 1-2 others had to pitch in and do the duty for him. (its like that old thing about wounding a guy on the battlefield instead of killing him. If you wound him, you take more people out of the fight trying to get him out of the line of fire or whatever..)
When I came back to command the unit a 2nd time, he had been inactive for awhile and showed up at a meeting one night. My deputy commander & I asked him what he wanted to do for the unit. His response was "Anything.." I pulled out the 20-1 and said "Joe, there isn't a duty position called 'Anything'... What is it that you want to do, and know that you can fulfill the duties of?" I sent him away with a copy of the 20-1 and asked him to think about what it was he thought he could do, and legitimately accomplish, and then come back to me and the deputy with a plan.
He came back with "Communications Officer." I'd been down this road with him, but I was willing to give it another shot with some appropriate controls in place. "OK, Joe," I said, "But what I want to see out of you is a yearly plan to train our cadets and seniors, and a plan to obtain comm gear for our van." (being located in the same town as Wing HQ, we seldom got "our own" stuff ... so we didn't have a comm shack, since we could use wing's)
He never came back to the unit with any kind of a plan, even though I'd coached him about it, continued to ask him to do it, showed him examples, pointed him at resources, etc.
Finally he just stopped showing up. But the sad thing was: he'd been in CAP for 10 years at this point. He'd bounced around between commanders and wing Chiefs of Staff for that entire time, and nobody would do anything about him. (well, he did go to Region Staff College, but he did not pass it..)
I think there should be a minimum level of aptitude to be a member of this organization. Our members don't come here and drink beer and march in a parade 3x per year like, say, the VFW or the Legion. We actually expect something out of them. And if they don't pack the gear to do the jobs, then why do we need them?
IMHO you do not have to be able to stand to be able to give a training session, this is the kind of person I would have only allowed to be assistant to someone who had a primary responsibility as you noted he could not perform the duties of a primary officer in his duty position.
CGAux requires a test as part of the application process it seems and it is graded by the Flotilla's education officer at the flotilla I am attending/joining.
Isn't it called having at least a GED? Not needed to join, but to ascend to SMWAFORI (senior member wearing Air Force officer rank insignia) status.
Quote from: MSgt Van on April 29, 2010, 04:35:23 PM
Isn't it called having at least a GED? Not needed to join, but to ascend to SMWAFORI (senior member wearing Air Force officer rank insignia) status.
No Diploma/GED prohibits one from joining the real military I would think, so why should it be different (aside from cadets)???
I find it very hard to believe that there is ANY person that does not have something to give to a squadron. Without intent to offend, continued placement of a person as described above into various staff positions, especially mission critical ones such as communications officer, is a leadership FAIL. There are plenty of things for people to do to keep a squadron running that do not involve taking a project lead or manning a staff position. The option of putting somebody in as an assistant has already been put out there and I agree wholeheartedly. While comm officer was not a good fit, I assume that this gentleman would at least be a decent radio operator for you. Squadron Commanders and staff should be the ones making aptitude decisions when placing people into duty positions. This is applied objectively by determining where this person would best benefit the squadron, not by trying to force them into something that they are not capable of doing. Is lifting heavy objects the only thing the person can do? Put them on it when the need arises.
I think we have all seen squadrons with rosters full of highly qualified seniors of which only 50% (if you are lucky) actively participate. Sure, they have every duty position from Disaster Relief Officer to "Special Advisor to the Commander" filled in on their org chart, but the reality is that it is only on paper. The legal officer is non existent (call me if you need me). The Operations Officer shows up at the occasional SAREX for the free flying, and you just saw the Activities Officer for the first time in six months. The truth is that the bulk of things that take place to operate a squadron are done by a core group of people who are willing to put the time and energy into doing so. I will take five people with a good attitude willing to do "whatever it takes" but who may be a little slow, over ten highly qualified Phd types that don't show up or don't care to lift a finger when they do. Even if that means even sometimes doing a little more work myself in getting them organized and handling strategic planning functions, it still relieves downstream labor issues to make your plan happen.
We complain all the time on this board about how we are America's best kept secret, about how little people know of us, about how we want to be respected more or treated better as volunteers for this organization. We banter about the importance of grade and whether people "deserve it". It is time for a reality check. Yes, membership is a privilege not a right. Sure, Commanders and membership boards have the ability to pick and choose who they approve based off of a pretty wide and subjective scope. For putting ourselves up on a pedestal for being such highly trained and qualified professional volunteers, we certainly seem to be missing the boat in this post on a pretty substantive quality of leadership- holding ourselves accountable for excellence. Be a leader. Figure out how somebody can add value to your organization, not how to rule them out because they don't "pack the gear" to fill a staff position. It is a simple fact that the world needs many more ditch diggers than it does foremen to oversee the job.
Do you want to keep us a secret, or, worse yet, give us a bad name as an organization? Feel free to weed out all of the non-hackers who don't pack the gear to serve in your beloved CAP. By all means, make it far more difficult and expensive for people to VOLUNTEER their time through objective pre-acceptance testing. We need to be thinking far more Ellis Island than we do Elite Special Forces when it comes to filling spots in this organization IMHO. Let's make sound manpower decisions using the tools already provided to us along with some good old fashioned horse sense. Isn't that what leaders do on a regular basis? Soapbox now available for sale or lease.
YMMV
Ouch.. One of the best Communications Officers I have ever had the privilege to serve with was totally blind.. And before the AL and VFW comes to kick your butt while pushing their legless Veterans in wheelchairs, you better watch what you say about honorable, distinguished organizations. Their members have given far more than our non-Vet members to make this country safe.. The first part of the test should ask about ability to play with others and I think you just failed.. off with your head..
If a member is in a position they dont belong in, the commander can reassign them.
The military does such testing because they pretty much have the final call in what you do in that organization and need some idea of what you might be good at. In CAP the choice of what qualifications and activities you participate in is pretty much up to the member.
What are we thinking here? "Well Mr. Smith, I know you're a CFII who flies low-level powerline patrols on a weekly basis, but your CAPVAB says you'd make a great radio operator -- here's your headset."
Quote from: AirAux on April 29, 2010, 07:28:49 PM
Ouch.. One of the best Communications Officers I have ever had the privilege to serve with was totally blind.. And before the AL and VFW comes to kick your butt while pushing their legless Veterans in wheelchairs, you better watch what you say about honorable, distinguished organizations. Their members have given far more than our non-Vet members to make this country safe.. The first part of the test should ask about ability to play with others and I think you just failed.. off with your head..
I like that, very snarky but I wouldn't argue or disagree :).
Quote from: AirAux on April 29, 2010, 07:28:49 PM
Ouch.. One of the best Communications Officers I have ever had the privilege to serve with was totally blind.. And before the AL and VFW comes to kick your butt while pushing their legless Veterans in wheelchairs, you better watch what you say about honorable, distinguished organizations. Their members have given far more than our non-Vet members to make this country safe.. The first part of the test should ask about ability to play with others and I think you just failed.. off with your head..
hehe. As a card-carrying member of the American Legion, let me take a break from pushing my buddy in -his- wheelchair.
While my analogy was flawed, my point was that CAP isn't a fraternal organization, but rather its a participatory membership organization that has needs, requirements, a daily operational mission, etc. And we're not allowed to have a bar in our meeting facilities :)
I, too, have worked with blind CAP members (let me tell you about the one-eyed pilot we have up here). But the difference is that they were able to accomplish their duties, with some adjustments for their disabilities.
But at a certain point, some people do not possess the necessary cognitive skills and abilities to contribute to the mission. Is it up to a layperson to determine that, or some kind of more impartial 3rd party determination?
CAP is not a social program. We're not the little league, here, handing out trophies to everybody who "tries." At some point, an individual's inability to contribute in a meaningful way may outweigh any potential benefit of their participation, up to and including the resource drain that it may place upon the unit just to "manage" this individual.
The example I gave was just one guy. How about people who refuse to update their skills? Get a guy who goes "yeah, I'm a CFI, and I want to help fly cadets..." and you say "thats great!" and then you find out that while he's current in an airplane, he last flew a student back when Alan Shepard was taking primary training. Now what do you say? "Oh, uh, wow. Look at the time..."
Or lets talk about modern skills: word processing, email, etc.
Back in the day, correspondence was the admin officer hunting-and-pecking in the squadron office with three pieces of paper and two pieces of carbon paper rolled into the Selectric. Now, staff sections are expected to generate their own training plans, correspondence, read regulations and pubs online, put info out to the unit, create flyers, etc.
"I don't have a computer.." sez C. Crusty Crabb, CDR, USN (Ret.), CFII and crewchief to the Wright Bros. Uh oh.
I'm not expecting Einstein. But I want to make sure that my newbie LT here can read the AR670-1 and ACR670-1 when I hand it to him, and not say "Can you give me the Cliff Notes version? I don't read. At all."
^^^I say we add an IQ test, an MMPI, a Myers-Briggs, a lie detector test, a personal interview with a psychiatrist, a 10,000 word essay, the reassembly of a TV set from a box of parts, calculating Vanguard's shipping rates on at least 10 orders of varying amounts, and a lightning round of "Name That Tune" to our membership application process. That ought to keep the riff-raff out. ::)
:P
Suggestion: why not pick six of the hardest nosed folks on CT and have them approve or disapprove of ALL applications to membership in CAP. That would do two things, take them away from posting on this blog and make sure that CAP membership is pure and clean. And very small.
If you took Level 1 and made it a bit more in depth as an orientation course with a test you take before you actually submit paperwork, you would be like those other guys in the blue uniforms.
Something that might be good for cadets is some sort of fitness assessment before they join. For those that can't get it waived, but won't pass the PFT for whatever reason. Maybe some sample academics too. Weeds out the C/AB for lyfe because they can't pass Achievement 1.
Why don't we have some kind of screening for all prospective and even renewing members? Wait we do, It's called the UNIT MEMBERSHIP BOARD! Having a UMB is a requirement for all units, at every level of CAP yet most squadron's don't use it. Before suggesting a costly and asinine screening program, use the one we've got in place.
While I've run into a few CAP members that most consider "odd" and have some people skills issues, I don't recall running into anyone I thought was too stupid to be in CAP, which seems to be the premise here.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 30, 2010, 06:27:02 PM
While I've run into a few CAP members that most consider "odd" and have some people skills issues, I don't recall running into anyone I thought was too stupid to be in CAP, which seems to be the premise here.
I have. Too many times.
Quote from: Cecil DP on April 30, 2010, 06:18:14 PM
Why don't we have some kind of screening for all prospective and even renewing members? Wait we do, It's called the UNIT MEMBERSHIP BOARD! Having a UMB is a requirement for all units, at every level of CAP yet most squadron's don't use it. Before suggesting a costly and asinine screening program, use the one we've got in place.
Pretty sure its
not required, its
SUGGESTED I have seen several here say so and here's the actual reference in CAPR 39-2
CAPR 39-2 states:
(bold emphasis is mine, however the word "should" is shaded in the CAPR 39-2 so hence the bolding)
Quote1-5. Unit Membership Board (Applicable to cadets, cadet sponsors, and senior members only). All unit commanders should appoint a unit membership board comprised of a minimum of three members to assist the commander in determining the eligibility of new applicants and membership renewals.
IMHO NHQ should REQUIRE UMBs then we'll have no excuse for letting in silly members!
Also a side question, lets say the CC and the UMB (if there is one) decide to allow someone to join but then they decide they don't "like" that person anymore can they prevent them from renewing/joining again? IIRC I know you can terminate membership for cause, but what about non-cause? There are two types of terminations IIRC involuntary (for cause) and voluntary and you can usually rejoin without adverse issues other than having to do your TIG over again depending on how long the lapse is.
^^^I can see our new public service announcement campaign: Help Keep CAP NARS* Free!
Audio:
"We're the Civil Air Patrol, the official auxiliary of the United States Air Force. And we want you to join us, unless, of course, you are a NARS. While we only do model rocket science with our cadets, if you are a NARS, we don't want you. In fact, the CAP is a "NARS-free" zone. What is a NARS? Anyone who has to ask what a NARS is. So, help CAP fulfill its NARS-less "Missions for America"--unless, of course, you are a NARS."
*Not A Rocket Scientist
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 28, 2010, 11:21:06 PM
Lets face it, some of our senior members are challenged in performing in tasks that most could perform. In some instances, they will require constant supervision by another senior member.
However, what they lack in aptitude, they do display a very positive attitude towards the organization and are likely to do the very best they can, with their limitations.
Should we have some sort of aptitude test similiar to the the armed forces, in order to determine IF a senior member should be allowed to join the program as an active senior member ???
I realize that this is controversial, BUT if you have too large a senior staff that is low in aptitude, the overall unit's effectiveness could be affected greatly.
Comments :-\
RM
No.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 30, 2010, 06:27:02 PM
While I've run into a few CAP members that most consider "odd" and have some people skills issues, I don't recall running into anyone I thought was too stupid to be in CAP, which seems to be the premise here.
The dangerous ones (and the ones that make me afraid to carry any type of weapon least I use it!!!) would easily pass any initial entrance test you might give them. You might even feel proud that you recruited them. It is only when you start to rely on them and assume they are normal that they demonstrate they are totally incapable of following even the most basic of instructions and have absolutely zero common sense.
Heh... Seems like we've been mostly there, even bit twice by the same individual, who has gone on a unit tour, burning every bridge in the greater area thats possible. :)