Senior Members who don't want to be Senior Members

[MajFitzpatrick]

I am so frustrated. I have a lot of Senior members who have no interest in being a Senior member. They say they are there to just support the Cadet programs. But they keep their senior member status so they can "make Decisions" in the squadron. I am fed up, a lot of my cadets are fed up, and when you try to push the topic to the other senior members, you get told they are just "Volunteers". Here is my gripe, not knowing the mission and vision in CAP as a Senior member does not help anyone. In all actuality it hurts all those involved, especially the cadets. I want to create technical experts out of Senior members so they can be the best asset to the organization, but then I get told that this is not the way things are. And I will not change them. I have been in CAP for 12 years, (and I am still a young kid to most Senior members, regardless that I out rank them by two or three grades.) and the more and more I am involved with a majority of these "Volunteer Professionals" I am getting a sour taste in my mouth. I will not find another venue because I believe in the missions and the ideals of this organization. I am just not sure how to get the other senior members on that same path. I am not saying its all the senior members. But I do have the loud squeaky wheels that have their own myopic self aggrandized ideas on what this program is supposed to be, and it isn't what they think. My cadets are fed up, I am fed up, My commander is caught between a political rock and hard place. And I really don't know what to do.   

[EMT-83]

The commander isn't between a rock and anything. It's his job to provide a vision for the squadron and define a path on how to get there.

Maybe he likes things the way they are. If not, it's time for him to either grow a pair or step down.

[Thrashed]

Typical CAP. I have maybe 1/3 of my seniors doing something. The rest do nothing.

[ascorbate]

I believe one way to increase senior participation is to provide some Professional Development structure (and counseling) one on one. If seniors take the time to invest in themselves, I find that by extension, they become more involved in other aspects of the CAP program. You won't win over everyone, but this is a different approach to try!

Print out the CAP Senior Member Professional Development Program Progression and Awards chart (attachment #1 in CAPR 50-17) and find out where each of your senior member(s) is/are in their current level. Together with each individual senior officer, find out what they have already completed... and what remains to be completed... and suggest (eg. map out) a path to complete that current level. Senior officers who are tasked often take the task more seriously to completion. It's worth a try!

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R050_017_AAC4BB3089BE0.pdf

[EMT-83]

Typical CAP. I have maybe 1/3 of my seniors doing something. The rest do nothing.

Absolutely do not agree.

If the members do nothing, they are no longer members. Set the expectation and make it happen. It's called leadership, and it starts at the top.

[Eclipse]

The commander isn't between a rock and anything. It's his job to provide a vision for the squadron and define a path on how to get there.

Agree.  Assuming agreement, between you and he, you only need one more adult on his page to maintain the charter, from there, anyone
who isn't contributing can find better ways to spend their free time.

If the CC isn't interested in taking the steps to fix things, nothing is going to happen, and then you need to decide if you want to continue at the level you are.  If not, then perhaps a new squadron, or moving to a different echelon is something to consider.

[Thrashed]

Typical CAP. I have maybe 1/3 of my seniors doing something. The rest do nothing.

Absolutely do not agree.

If the members do nothing, they are no longer members. Set the expectation and make it happen. It's called leadership, and it starts at the top.

I agree. Too bad our commander is one of the 2/3.

[RiverAux]

They say they are there to just support the Cadet programs. But they keep their senior member status so they can "make Decisions" in the squadron.

Please explain this a bit more.  Are they not doing anything at all?  Or are they just doing misc. things to help run the cadet program but are unwilling to take an official staff officer position? 

I'm also unsure what decisions they get to help make as senior members since there is no democracy in CAP at that level. 

[Dad2-4]

They say they are there to just support the Cadet programs. But they keep their senior member status so they can "make Decisions" in the squadron.

Please explain this a bit more.  Are they not doing anything at all?  Or are they just doing misc. things to help run the cadet program but are unwilling to take an official staff officer position? 

I'm also unsure what decisions they get to help make as senior members since there is no democracy in CAP at that level.

That was my first thought as well. They have to be in the CP chain of command to make decisions regarding Cadets. If they do not hold a staff position in the chain of command, and are at meetings just to "support" by telling cadets what to do, then some housecleaning and one-on-ones with the CC need to be done. 

[RiverAux]

Of course, there is no requirement that senior members ever take a staff position or participate in the PD program, so if a senior member just wants to drive the cadets around or do various gofer jobs to help out the cadets, that is perfectly within their rights and there would be no basis for any housecleaning. 

[Eclipse]

Of course, there is no requirement that senior members ever take a staff position or participate in the PD program, so if a senior member just wants to drive the cadets around or do various gofer jobs to help out the cadets, that is perfectly within their rights and there would be no basis for any housecleaning.

Command prerogative may well dictate the housecleaning.

[SARDOC]

If they have a qualifying cadet family member make them a Cadet Sponsor Member.  That way all they have to do is the "Cadet" stuff.

[RiverAux]

Of course, there is no requirement that senior members ever take a staff position or participate in the PD program, so if a senior member just wants to drive the cadets around or do various gofer jobs to help out the cadets, that is perfectly within their rights and there would be no basis for any housecleaning.

Command prerogative may well dictate the housecleaning.

Okay, what will be the legal basis under CAP regulations for kicking them out? 

[DakRadz]

Big difference between kicking them out and replacing their position with someone else.

[Eclipse]

Who said anything about kicking them out? 

Housecleaning doesn't always mean terminating members.  You start by setting the new expectations for
participation, as well as staying in the lane of one's assigned duty.  No assigned duty means you need to
participate quietly and without attempting to exert any authority, etc.

From there, for those who are not happy with that, you can suggest another squadron or echelon might be a better choice for their participation, move them to 000, or patron status.  Within that dynamic, anyone being openly insubordinate, hostile, or trying to circumvent procedure might then open themselves up to disciplinary action, but that's the Armageddon scenario and one we should work to avoid.

Everyone serves at the pleasure of their respective commander.  We may not like it, but if we want to play, them's the rules.

[RiverAux]

Housecleaning means kicking people out -- either out of CAP or out of the squadron. 

The fact that you would consider kicking someone out of the unit, if not out of CAP for refusing to take a staff position is just ludicrous, especially if that person is actively attending meetings and helping out in some way or another.  These people are the "indians" that we say we don't have enough of in CAP compared to all our "chiefs".  I would love to have a dozen people in my squadron willing to do misc. work even if they aren't on staff. 

Big difference between kicking them out and replacing their position with someone else.

The OP hasn't made clear whether we are talking about current staff officers not doing their job or non-staff officers refusing to take a staff job.

[SamFranklin]

It is difficult to contribute meaningfully to this discussion based on the minimal information provided.

You say they "do not want to be senior members."  What does "being a senior member" mean to you? I have a sense you intend much more there than simply being listed as a dues-paying senior. To me, "being a senior" means having Level I / CPPT done and contributing in some meaningful way that is agreeable to the unit and the member. My assessment comes from the basic rules that Level I / CPPT is your basic ticket for interacting with cadets, per 52-10, etc. Any qualifications that the volunteer obtains beyond that is a bonus.

My hunch is that you view "being a senior" means being an active participant in the senior PD program. Sure, I'd prefer people jump in with both feet, but if someone wants simply to serve in a support staff role, that's fine. There's no regulation preventing a Level I person from doing that, and, moreover, my read on the Core Values is that "Respect" means a commander should value the individual's participation at whatever level he or she is willing to contribute. You can't show "Respect" for a volunteer if you criticize them at the outset for not participating in an optional PD program.

If you think of yourself as a professional, try to take a step back and see the good that these volunteers are attempting to offer the cadets.

[Eclipse]

Housecleaning means kicking people out -- either out of CAP or out of the squadron. 

The fact that you would consider kicking someone out of the unit, if not out of CAP for refusing to take a staff position is just ludicrous, especially if that person is actively attending meetings and helping out in some way or another.  These people are the "indians" that we say we don't have enough of in CAP compared to all our "chiefs".  I would love to have a dozen people in my squadron willing to do misc. work even if they aren't on staff. 

Again, I didn't say anything about removing someone for not taking a staff job - that's not what this thread is even about.
And I don't see where anyone mentioned PD, though many do not see PD as "optional" for effective members.  If you want to drive the van and sit quietly in the back of the room, well, so be it, but staff members need to be working the program they purport to be supporting.

"Valued" members need to have an at least equal balance between contribution level and PITA level.

Anyone who is contributing without being a PITA is fine.

Anyone who can't be bothered but isn't being a PITA isn't fine, but won't get much attention.

But people who can't be bothered, who then expect to have an authoritative role in operations, or, as is common, show up twice a year and expect to run the show those days are a problem and need to be re-mediated at whatever level the CC sees fit.

We can't say there are no longer requirements beyond payment for membership, because NHQ now says their are, but no member is required to do anything beyond those minimums, however they shouldn't be a detriment to operations either just because they wrote a check.

A good commander can balance and re-mediate these issues with sensitivity to all involved.

[tsrup]

To the OP, what are you looking for other than a venue to complain about your current squadron?
What I'm saying is: Is there a question embedded in that text wall of yours?

Either be proactive and fix it there yourself, or look for a new squadron if you are truly that dissatisfied. Otherwise you just come off whiny. 
YMMV

[lordmonar]

I don't understand the OP's grip.

SM X.....joins to support the cadet program.....does his required training......does his safety education.....does what he volunteers to do.....but has not desire to do anything else?

That is called an asset.

Use your assets based on their avialabilty, skills, and desires.

By all means encourage them to sharpen their current skills, expand their skill base and explore more possiblities.

But as they say.......CAP is a volunteer organisation and you/we can't change that.

And you should not change that......if you make, say, ES a requirement for the guy who just wants to do the paper work or take care of the van....then you are going to loose him.  If you make your perfectly good Leadership officer also do AE stuff and he does not want to....he will walk.

It is our jobs as leaders to find out about each of our senior member...find out what skills they have, what abilities they have and what motivates them.  We then match each individual to a job in the squadron.  We tailor our training and our recruiting to fill in any gaps between skills on hand and skills required to accomplish the mission.

Pounding your head agains the wall of "I don't want to do XXXX and CAP is a volunteer organisation" only makes things worse.