Maybe an "inactive feature" in e-services

[Major Carrales]

I was looking at the MEMBER SEARCH feature and noticed the "safety information" compliance column that is on the far right.  I noticed a number of no longer active cadets that are listed as incomplete.  Some of them are gone for good or moved and don't plan on continuing in CAP.

I was wondering what the opinions would be of an "INACTIVE CADET" feature that could be added to insure that these sorts didn't continue to count against the unit on the various report.  Not to make the "disappear," but rather that they best be listed as "INACTIVE."

Once the cadet returns to activity, if desired, they would return to the ACTIVE list.  In addition, while in INACTIVE, they would not be able to partake in the program.  Also, that there would be some "checks and balances" and an "appeal" to the GROUP of WING LEVEL to prevent potential abuse.

Odds are, if as cadet is inactive, being placed in such status without penalty (i.e. for those sabatticals from CAP or for simply leaving early) where they could come out of it if a change of heart took place.

[MIKE]

So, what you really need is a way to Patron-ize cadets?

[coudano]

I get the sense that that column is listed there for quick and convenient currency checking
on the part of, for example, mission base staff: at the start of a mission

or i guess, technically, any activity at the start of an activity
(like i have time to be checking safety currency on people at the start of an activity)


I still have yet to see a specific instance in space and time with a specific name attached to it where some specific commander came down and thwacked anyone because of 'numbers on a report'.
Please feel free to indulge.

[a2capt]

Basically, we need a way to reflect real world values because when you have the higher HQ's breathing fire and threatening to kill your unit, ground it, suspend people, etc. that we can just say "they're not active"...

Patron isn't always the answer, they could be LOA. But in the past it wasn't an issue since LOA's sit in the 201 file, now that higher HQ is running reports on us seeing who's prayed, in what direction, and when it was last done, it is an issue.

I also believe that the discipline for this should be strictly a unit function. Higher HQ's don't need to be micromanaging and worrying about petty level stuff like this. If the members in question are attending the meetings and activities it's a pretty darn good bet they are current on that safety stuff.

If as part of all activities that are run by higher HQ's for multiple units, check in requires proof of Safety compliance, or for that matter, just hold a session first thing out the gate - and log everyone, and be done. It's really not that hard.

But if the members are not showing up, again, thats a unit problem, let unit management deal with it. Let higher HQ's worry about regional training, etc.

As for how "bad" it's gotten, and how many things members have to test on, figure out, find, etc- and with how embedded this safety compliance is getting in our faces, I wonder whats next?

IF all said requirements were in one place, great. But they're not. We've compiled a page on our site entitled "Required Training", with links to it all. That situation is an example of how most CAP materials are. Stuff in eServices, stuff on the web sites, etc. It's all over the place. There's no darn consistency. Some stuff is on capmembers.com, other is on gocivilairpatrol.com, OPSEC is under ES, to log OPSEC we do this, to log safety we do that.

CAP Cares .... all right.. yeah. ;-)

Ugh.

...and when are they gonna figure out that CMS that they use still sucks no matter what they do to it.

[Eclipse]

I still have yet to see a specific instance in space and time with a specific name attached to it where some specific commander came down and thwacked anyone because of 'numbers on a report'.
Please feel free to indulge.

You and I have danced this dance before, your wing is different than others, thankfully mine is actually fairly well engaged
in compliance, in fact I witnessed it first-hand this week

It frankly it is disappointing and unacceptable to hear that national mandates are being ignored, especially when you consider how it
impacts the credibility of wings that are actually doing their jobs to have to hear that others aren't.

That doesn't mean I agree with the mandates or the process, but a mandate is a mandate, and this(these) are clear and simple to
both comply with and re-mediate.

[Major Carrales]

I still have yet to see a specific instance in space and time with a specific name attached to it where some specific commander came down and thwacked anyone because of 'numbers on a report'.
Please feel free to indulge.

There are regular reports printed out and unit percentages on compliance that are made.  Those not in compliance are usually put in a ghost unit, yet, mandates of FULL COMPLIANCE come regulary.  If 90% is only possible because 5 cadets no longer show up...I will never be able to get FULL COMPLIANCE.  At least the function I described would account for that 10%.

[coudano]

I still have yet to see a specific instance in space and time with a specific name attached to it where some specific commander came down and thwacked anyone because of 'numbers on a report'.
Please feel free to indulge.

You and I have danced this dance before, your wing is different than others, thankfully mine is actually fairly well engaged
in compliance, in fact I witnessed it first-hand this week

It frankly it is disappointing and unacceptable to hear that national mandates are being ignored, especially when you consider how it
impacts the credibility of wings that are actually doing their jobs to have to hear that others aren't.

That doesn't mean I agree with the mandates or the process, but a mandate is a mandate, and this(these) are clear and simple to
both comply with and re-mediate.

And yet, even after this, I *STILL* have yet to see a specific instance in space and time with a specific name attached to it where some specific commander came down and thwacked anyone because of 'numbers on a report'.

[Eclipse]

And yet, even after this, I *STILL* have yet to see a specific instance in space and time with a specific name attached to it where some specific commander came down and thwacked anyone because of 'numbers on a report'.

The key word in that sentence is "you" have not seen it.  I have seen it and done it.

However define "thwack".  You and I both know the limitations of our ability to re-mediate these things and/or replace non-compliant commanders, however that does not mean the situation should be ignored, or counted as meaningless.

In some cases the situation was handled at a higher echelon by simply moving empty shirts, like it or not.

[RADIOMAN015]

I agree that there needs to be an "inactive" status for members.  Not a "patron status".   Basically with senior members they could request to be placed in this for up to 11 months.  For senior members not completing training a letter detailing the deficiencies would be sent and also a statement that they are being placed in "inactive" status.  For cadets IF they aren't attending meeting, than they could get a letter asking them as to why they weren't attending and be basically told that they are going into inactive status until the end of their membership.  An individual placed in "inactive status" would be unable to renewal their membership, unless they went back to "active status" or renewed as a "patron member" (senior members only).

Way too much time is being spent chasing people for all this silliness and statistics in training.  One letter and that's it (gee I'm almost getting like Eclipse )

Of course than there would be "inactive" stats, so higher hq could be calling the squadrons and asking them about that (or inspecting to be sure that everyone put into that status got a letter, etc).  Yup, that the way it is :angel: 

RM
 

[majdomke]

If the seniors are no longer attending and not returning calls or emails, change their status to Patron or 2B them. If the cadets are no longer attending and not returning calls or emails, 2B them. We had to do this very thing just a couple months back to rid ourselves of the ghosts. It's too bad there isn't a way to flag members in eServices as inactive. Patron and 2B worked fine for me.

[RADIOMAN015]

If the seniors are no longer attending and not returning calls or emails, change their status to Patron or 2B them. If the cadets are no longer attending and not returning calls or emails, 2B them. We had to do this very thing just a couple months back to rid ourselves of the ghosts. It's too bad there isn't a way to flag members in eServices as inactive. Patron and 2B worked fine for me.

2B is punitive (and what I relate to is a serious breach of CAP regulation),  patron status can be punitive, especially if the member is overseas serving and just can't do all the training due to limited internet/duty schedule.   
Why not allow the adult leadership the opportunity to classify members appropriately and also save CAP money.  Remember if they go Patron the fingerprint and background has to get done again if they decide to go active. IF you let them go inactive I wouldn't think a new FC/BC would be required unless they were inactive for over a year.  We have people in the unit that go to Florida during the winter, technically they aren't available for anything so wouldn't "inactive" also service that purpose   As far as the cadet go, my suggestion to those that have problem with the program is to just put in a letter for a leave of absence due to school/personal reasons.  IF their membership comes up for renewal and they are still in "inactive" status.  They can't renew.
 
RM   

[majdomke]

Where do you get "punitive" from? Have you looked at the form? For cadets there are three reasons that are not punitive and seniors one. I suggest you look it over again. "Lack of Interest" works well for cadets who disappear. For seniors, you could do Voluntary but would need to provide good evidence. Otherwise Failure to Obey Rules... is good since they are not maintaining their training requirements.

[majdomke]

Remember if they go Patron the fingerprint and background has to get done again if they decide to go active.

Please cite

[Spaceman3750]

Remember if they go Patron the fingerprint and background has to get done again if they decide to go active.

Please cite

To the contrary of what RM said:

NOTE: Patrons transferring to active status who have not previously completed the FBI screening procedures must include a FD Form 258 with the CAPF 2a.

If they've been screened once they don't need to be re-screened.

[RiverAux]

Unfortunately, I have to say that such a feature would be too easily abused.  Can't get all your folks to do a requirement?  Just hit the inactive button and you're good to go.  Unless having that "inactive" button activated has some real consequences to the member (such as automatically suspending all ES and flying quals) it would be a great tool to make it look like you're doing everything you need to do. 

[peter rabbit]

This topic has been discussed in another thread. If you want to keep a SM affiliated with your unit and they aren't active, change them to Patron status and you can keep collecting unit dues. If a cadet, or a SM that isn't paying dues, staying current, etc, have them transferred to the XX-000 unit. NHQ considers XX-000 an inactive, "Patron", unit and has modified reports, etc so that any ES qualifications are not active for anyone in that unit.

Why 2B someone? If they want to keep paying dues to support CAP, why lose that - plus create a former member that will bad-mouth CAP?

[Eclipse]

NHQ considers XX-000 an inactive, "Patron", unit and has modified reports, etc so that any ES qualifications are not active for anyone in that unit.

Incorrect.  Members in 000 do not lose their qualifications and may continue to participate, which is part of the problem.
By design 000 units do not have commanders, but it is possible to assign staff with commander's equivalent right and
continue to allow members in 000 to be active in ES (or anything else for that matter).

Part of the issue is that the existing regs are very specific regarding the how and why's of removing ES and flight quals, especially
for pilots, and membership in an active squadron is not one of the things that can be used as a disqualifier.

[Major Carrales]

This topic has been discussed in another thread. If you want to keep a SM affiliated with your unit and they aren't active, change them to Patron status and you can keep collecting unit dues. If a cadet, or a SM that isn't paying dues, staying current, etc, have them transferred to the XX-000 unit. NHQ considers XX-000 an inactive, "Patron", unit and has modified reports, etc so that any ES qualifications are not active for anyone in that unit.

Why 2B someone? If they want to keep paying dues to support CAP, why lose that - plus create a former member that will bad-mouth CAP?

2b flags a person and can create a huge issue in returning to "active" CAP service.  If person has to go on sabbatical for what ever reason, should not be so treated.

[davidsinn]

2b flags a person and can create a huge issue in returning to "active" CAP service.  If person has to go on sabbatical for what ever reason, should not be so treated.

Not always. A voluntary resignation does not flag them. They just have to rejoin and go through the whole process again.

[peter rabbit]

NHQ considers XX-000 an inactive, "Patron", unit and has modified reports, etc so that any ES qualifications are not active for anyone in that unit.

Incorrect.  Members in 000 do not lose their qualifications and may continue to participate, which is part of the problem.
By design 000 units do not have commanders, but it is possible to assign staff with commander's equivalent right and
continue to allow members in 000 to be active in ES (or anything else for that matter).

Part of the issue is that the existing regs are very specific regarding the how and why's of removing ES and flight quals, especially
for pilots, and membership in an active squadron is not one of the things that can be used as a disqualifier.

Would you please consider contacting Joey Barton at NHQ and providing him with details of members continuing to participate from the XX-000 unit? - this is what he says:
"The reports in Ops Quals should not show members in the 000 unit. They are considered patron member and patron members cannot participate in missions."