Should Potential CAP Senior Members Be Required To Pass An Aptitude Test?

[RADIOMAN015]

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   

[lordmonar]

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?! 

[Pylon]

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.

[tdepp]

^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.

[a2capt]

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.

[RADIOMAN015]

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

[lordmonar]

This 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.....

[EMT-83]

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.

[heliodoc]

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

[RADIOMAN015]

This 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   

[heliodoc]

"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......

[G]

@ 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.

[lordmonar]

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.....

[mynetdude]

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.

[NIN]

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?

[lordmonar]

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.

[mynetdude]

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.

[MSgt Van]

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.

[mynetdude]

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)

[CAP Marine]

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