Senior Members who don't want to be Senior Members

[Eclipse]

If you make your perfectly good Leadership officer also do AE stuff and he does not want to....he will walk.

But is it unreasonable to expect your perfectly good AEO to be pursing the related track to keep his job?
And how good can he be if he isn't?

[tsrup]

If you make your perfectly good Leadership officer also do AE stuff and he does not want to....he will walk.

But is it unreasonable to expect your perfectly good AEO to be pursing the related track to keep his job?
And how good can he be if he isn't?

But is that what we're talking about here?

Honest question, because I don't think any of has a clue as to what the OP is really asking.



Otherwise we can interpret it a couple ways,

1)
The OP has people that are committed to one facet of the program, and despite anyones words to the contrary, they prefer focused on that aspect

2)
The OP has members who just aren't committed at all and are well content to just sit back and say that they are committed to a facet of our program when in reality their greatest effort has been to pay their membership fee

or
3)
Our OP is just doing what CAP members like to do: Gripe.


In any case it really boils down to the fact that the original post gives us minimum information and as we all know there are three sides to every story: One person's, the other person's, and the truth.

[Eclipse]

But is that what we're talking about here?

Honest question, because I don't think any of has a clue as to what the OP is really asking.

Yeah, gotta pretty go with this, too.

[lordmonar]

If you make your perfectly good Leadership officer also do AE stuff and he does not want to....he will walk.

But is it unreasonable to expect your perfectly good AEO to be pursing the related track to keep his job?
And how good can he be if he isn't?

I would expect him to be qualified or working for qualification as a technician at least....other wise I would not have assigned him as an AEO.  I did not get the impression from the OP that this was his problem.

[MajFitzpatrick]

Gripe and frustration is this.

I look at having technical experts who teach and mentor both cadets and seniors alike. To have that you must have people who are willing to actually look at the material and learn it. Not be able to recite it for a test. Teach material so it can then be applied.

I have those who are put into a specialty track and then when they have not achieved an understanding of the material, even when they say they have, and you tell them they have not grasped the material to the point of attaining the specialty track, I am told they are just volunteers. I try to set them up with mentors, but they have no interest in working with those people. They really show that they have not put in an effort to attain that specialty track, or even a greater understanding of the program. If I went and told about the Congressional mandated tasks that CAP is supposed to do, I am looked at as if I am some psycho on an ultra military trip. My cadet's have expressed that they want more discipline, and are developing a program regimented in teaching the curriculum. They make me very proud in how they are looking at the material and want to set up a systematic program to guarantee success, but then they get told by Senior members (WHO WON'T EVEN DO THEIR HOMEWORK IN THEIR RESPECTIVE SPECIALTY TRACKS) That what they are developing is a bad idea, and that it isn't what the program is about. But what really the cadets are doing is adhering to the paramilitary parallels and looking at a problem, coming up with a solution, and trying to execute a solution. But because that solution is more regimented and military they are being shot down.

I am trying to parallel what the cadets are doing and trying to bring more structure into the Senior Program. But I get people who misquote regulations and have their own interpretation of meanings, which I understand is their right. But when I try to sit down and explain the program, or what the regulation is trying to say, they don't want to listen. I had a Senior member who had an award presented to her by the wing commander, and didn't know how to report in to the Wing Commander. That would be fine and dandy, but she was in an Air Force Style uniform and is a 1st Lt. When I have tried to coach this individual, the excuse is, "I am only here for the cadets, and all this information is to much for me to remember otherwise." If she was just a Senior member or a sponsor member that would be fine. But this person is in an AF style uniform with AF style Rank. Half of my senior members who have rank, can't identify the rank. I have tried to put on classes to teach this stuff, and half refuse to attend, or they don't pay attention in the class. Others actually take the material and truly learn it. But those who have their own idea about the program, like it is some church group, don't have any consequences for those type of thoughts. But they are the first to go complain, when you make a Cadet report in because it is "To stern, and is verbally abusive." (Yes a standard military Reporting statement.)

That is where my frustration is. I don't know what to do, since the commander does not want to council these members at all in their behavior. I can not council them because in their words, "Why do I need to listen to a 26 year old, I am in my 40-50s and have had life experience/kids..... ect ect ect.)  I come from the caste system of the military both as a CAP cadet, and as a military member.

They do not believe they need to earn the respect of the cadets nor do they need to earn the respect of senior members that don't think like them.

I don't know how to bring them into the team.

[johnnyb47]

Customs and courtesies are an important part of the cadet program.
It's impossible to "be here for the cadets" while displaying a bad example.
I intentionally walk around during our outdoor activities looking for other officers to whom I can render a proper salute. After doing so for 1 night, without saying a word about it, our cadets and seniors alike began to follow suit.

It may help to tell them that, while we as senior members may be embarrassed at times by one thing or another our cadets are just as embarrassed by our inability to wear a uniform, salute, report and address an audience. Like the dark side of the force Embarrassment leads to lack of respect. Lack of respect leads to intolerance. Intolerance leads to inneffective leadership.

Just an opinion from the new guy.

[Bobble]

MajFitzpatrick -

I get that you have a significant amount of time in CAP (12 yrs), both as a Cadet and as a Senior Member, and that you have an RM background (and thank you for your service!).  But apparently (and similiar to just about every other CAP squadron), and to your obvious dismay, some of the Senior Members in your squadron do not have military-style organizational experience similiar to your own, nor do they wish to meet your personal expectations of what membership/participation in CAP means to you.

Based on what you have written in your postings, is it safe to assume that you are involved not just with the Cadet Programs aspect of CAP, but also with SM Professional Development and Training?  Are the issues you present from your perspective of A) the staff duty assignments you have or had (i.e., Cadet Programs Officer and/or Senior Program Officer), B) from your appointed role in a position of command authority/responsibility (i.e., Squadron Commander or Deputy Squadron Commander), or C) both A and B?

Making that information known to the discussion board participants here might go a long way towards intelligently discussing what you perceive as problematic to the way your squadron is presently operating. Thanks.

[Spaceman3750]

Progression in PD is pretty much a given in my squadron, at least as best as you can. My squadron's CC and CDC have been sitting just shy of Level II for a long time now because they haven't been able to get to SLS, but we're taking about 8 people to an upcoming SLS.

When we get new seniors, the first thing I do when they show up in eServices is send them a document I prepared listing the steps to completing Level I and the rationale for each step. They do the online parts online, print the foundations quizes and bring them in completed, and go through the on-line portion of CPPT and review the case studies. I then go through the quizes and CPPT case study with them at a meeting.

After they complete Level I, I ask them to review the specialty tracks on the capmembers.com website and let me know what they want to pursue. I usually recommend a 1 year track and a 6 month track, and if we have a specific need I will suggest that but not compel them into it. When they decide we assign them to the corresponding duty position and I brief them on how Level II works - here's your specialty track guide, you will need to complete these things for your tech rating, you will need to register for OBC online as soon as you can, and I will let you know when the next SLS is. It isn't until this point that I consider them to be a functioning member of the squadron, as opposed to the guy that's still in orientation.

If you integrate PD into the new member routine it becomes an expectation without having to force the issue.

[EMT-83]

+1

But without the support of the commander, you're facing an uphill battle.

[Eclipse]

Misquoting regulations is easily fixed by being informed yourself and armed with the correct verbiage.   Misinterpretations, however, are in the eyes of the beholder.  Interpretation of anything not specific is the prerogative of the local commander or those he appoints to have authority in those areas.

That is where my frustration is. I don't know what to do, since the commander does not want to council these members at all in their behavior.

You're basically done here. If you've pointed out the issues to thhe CC, and he is not interested in making changes, then the only other option is to change yourself, either in your accepting things as they are, or moving on to something different in CAP.  Anything else will just cause you frustration
and risk your membership in CAP, either because your head hurts from the dents or your attitude causes an action by your commander.

[RADIOMAN015]

I think just as there is in ANY other volunteer organization a wide variety of member participation and overall attitude.  In CAP on one end you've got the para military types that are gun ho military everything from military like uniform and haircuts etc to the almost hippie crowd, and everything in between :angel:.

I think the adult leadership (squadron commander) really has some challenges with volunteer personnel management.  Surely I too would agree with being impatient with some members that I feel could do more IF they wanted to.  On the other hand even if they do just a small task (e.g. bring the squadron vehicle in for maintenance and wash/clean it once in a while), (or another example teach the character development module/discussion exercise), that still takes some of the load off others in the squadron.   We have adults that are pilots that will do a special project (e.g. taking/driving the cadets to the local air/space museum) and again this does assist greatly.

For those that talk about disciplining members, I think that this needs to be used very cautiously.  I've seen some informal type action at the local level (that was deserved).   Also as far as professional development, some members just don't have an interest in self progressing and as long as they are at least contributing to the unit in some ways, than retention is warranted.
RM   
     

[EMT-83]

I can't agree that a member who just shows up when he wants, and does what he feels like, serves any purpose to the squadron. In my world, these people are called problem children. You have to chase them down to keep them current on safety, EO and changing regulations.

A squadron doesn't run itself; there are numerous staff positions which need to be filled. If you want to be a member, earn your keep. Yes, even pilots. I don't expect every member to attend every meeting, but show up often enough to do your job. If you want to be a patron member, change your status.

We had this argument in the fire department. Members would claim that we should just be grateful that they showed up. "I'm a volunteer; you can't make me do anything." Guess who the problem children were, always screwing up because they didn't have a clue?

[arajca]

That's where a sit down with the CC can help. Not discipline meeting, or even a counseling session. Sit down, explain the units's positions, expectations, and needs. See how they feel they can fit in and help. Get a simple commitment from them AND HOLD THEM TO IT.

As I explain to the SMs working on the CP side, we expect cadets to promote and progress. Seniors should set an example and do the same. Try to avoid the whole "Do as I say, not as I do" problem. I had one SM who wasn't interested in PD until we sat down and discussed what she'd already done learning the CP and what she had left (CP tech test) for her tech rating and 1st Lt. Also what she needs for her Level II. She accepted the setting the example argument, especialy since she already did most of the stuff just trying to learn the CP.

[ZigZag911]

CAP has three missions: AE, CP, ES.

Perhaps this ought to be the dividing line between 'officers' (generalists in RM) and NCOs or flight officers (WOs in every branch except USAF), who tend to be technical specialists.

If you are willing to pursue personal and professional growth in the 3 missions, including the possibility of command, you follow the 'commissioned'  (I understand it's really only an internal appointment!) professional development track.

If you want to focus exclusively on one of the 3 missions, or some other necessary supporting function, you follow the NCO/FO track.

[SARDOC]

CAP has three missions: AE, CP, ES.

Perhaps this ought to be the dividing line between 'officers' (generalists in RM) and NCOs or flight officers (WOs in every branch except USAF), who tend to be technical specialists.

If you are willing to pursue personal and professional growth in the 3 missions, including the possibility of command, you follow the 'commissioned'  (I understand it's really only an internal appointment!) professional development track.

If you want to focus exclusively on one of the 3 missions, or some other necessary supporting function, you follow the NCO/FO track.

I agree.  Our "Officers" should be people who've demonstrated the Commitment to the organization and the desire for leadership and be afforded the appropriate professional development to do so.  I find that a majority of our membership locally has no desire to serve in a leadership role just want to be able to serve there community and providing an enlisted or WO/FO track can be used to recognize experience and commitment.  It's just more tools in the tool box for reward and recognition.  Best of all it doesn't cost us anything.  Big tool for recruiting and retention.

[lordmonar]

I agree with that idea.

I would suggest that we expand the flight officers to five levels (one for each PD Level).

Officer ranks would be reserved for only those who actually hold leadership positions.....leave the position and then you revert back to your Flight Officer Rank.

IIRC we have a thread on that. 

[mjbernier]

Progression in PD is pretty much a given in my squadron, at least as best as you can. My squadron's CC and CDC have been sitting just shy of Level II for a long time now because they haven't been able to get to SLS, but we're taking about 8 people to an upcoming SLS.

When we get new seniors, the first thing I do when they show up in eServices is send them a document I prepared listing the steps to completing Level I and the rationale for each step. They do the online parts online, print the foundations quizes and bring them in completed, and go through the on-line portion of CPPT and review the case studies. I then go through the quizes and CPPT case study with them at a meeting.

After they complete Level I, I ask them to review the specialty tracks on the capmembers.com website and let me know what they want to pursue. I usually recommend a 1 year track and a 6 month track, and if we have a specific need I will suggest that but not compel them into it. When they decide we assign them to the corresponding duty position and I brief them on how Level II works - here's your specialty track guide, you will need to complete these things for your tech rating, you will need to register for OBC online as soon as you can, and I will let you know when the next SLS is. It isn't until this point that I consider them to be a functioning member of the squadron, as opposed to the guy that's still in orientation.

If you integrate PD into the new member routine it becomes an expectation without having to force the issue.

I like the way this process is laid out. Our CC and PDO didn't exactly go through these steps with me as I was working through Level I, but it was pretty close and I was very appreciative to have that much attention when I was getting started. I would add to it assigning a mentor to each new member; that way, the new person knows who they can go to if they come across something they don't understand.

Mike

[Dracosbane]

Just a couple of thoughts.

If what the OP is getting at is people attempting to do what they want, when they want, and interfere with/try to control the program when they aren't willing to learn the program properly or only want it to be "their way," this causes a problem.  Members should realize that the program is specific and regulated.  I know of senior members that misquote or misinterpret regulations or program specifics because they either can't be bothered to learn properly or because they don't care.  This can lead to issues within units and within the program in general.

As far as SMs who won't learn how the cadet program works, and allow the rules and regulations (customs and courtesies) to happen as designed are hurting the unit cadet corp and the program as a whole.  When my unit has brought in new SMs (those without previous CAP experience), I've made helping them to understand the cadet program and how it works, including teaching them D&C and customs and courtesies a priority.  I do not approach this as a requirement.  I explain to them that this is only helping them in their career as they work with cadets.  It shows them what the cadets go through, and teaches them so they can properly teach.  I only suggest that it helps them and they have been happy and receptive.  It's a bit of "salute" school and the explanations on how it affects them while interacting with cadets both at the unit and at activities. 

Sometimes it takes several times explaining things for people to get it.  Sometimes it won't ever sink in.