What constitutes "active participation"?

[Eclipse]

End result is the same....but I have more time to spend on program or to just sit back and enjoy myself.

And this is the small-squad mentality which will be the backbone of CAP?  Don't worry, be happy?

[lordmonar]

And?   You have yet to show that 'fixing' the issue fixed anything.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Show me a directive that says we must kick them out.    I accept we can.....but you just say HHG directives!

You should be lopping off 30% every time you hear any number about CAP.
Also please know....we are not competition for anything so why you even worried about an advantage?

I got 46 cadets on the books....30 active.   You got 30 people on your book and 30 active.....and you kick out 16 cadets before their member ship is up.

End result is the same....but I have more time to spend on program or to just sit back and enjoy myself.

Word I got is that if someone is safety expired past x-days, they are to be transferred to Patron or 2B'd. Cadets can't go Patron, so it's a 2B. Chances are, if they are 60 days out of safety currency, they are not coming back. Already addressed that we reach out, give them plenty of chances, and offer to do a "resignation" if that's the way they want to go. Temporary absences are completely alright if we know what's going on.


I know we're not competing (unless of course, it's silly things like Squadron of Merit, and units play the numbers just for that purpose, including clicking off Awards in FY A or B depending on need...seriously), but it's a nice benchmark to go by. When I hear a unit has 60 cadets, I expect to see an average meeting of 45 cadets. When I see 30-25, I have to start wondering why the attendance is so low.


Actually, I'd have more time to spend on the program NOT dealing with inactives (by 2B'ing them). They skew all reports, they skew flight sizes (nothing like flight A having 10 cadets and flight B 3 because they happened to draw the inactive pile), they take up that mental work time by having to go in and "cross them out" each time I'm looking at said reports.


I don't care about SoM or SoD anymore. That program is so mismanaged at the local level, that it feels like it's a "pick out of a hat" type thing, based on no criteria outlined whatsoever. I don't "really" care about QCUA, but I also see the benefit of AEX, STEM program, etc, so why not strive to hit those benchmarks. Do I really care to have 40% cadets with WBA or higher? Perhaps, depending on how many cadets we have, and how many staff positions need to be filled. 50% encampment? I'd love to see a 60-75% rate instead of trying to hit that minimum 50%. Cadet growth year to year? Yep, would love to grow 10 cadets or 10% a year, but lets be realistic, the retention is based on 40%, so if I have 30 on the books, 10% is 3, and only 40% stick around, so I really need to get 10-11 in the door to keep those 3, and I also need to think about replacing aging out cadets (7 last year), and the random non-first year drops. So realistically, I need to be bringing in 15-20 new cadets to keep up with our last year numbers. Then I need another 10-12 to keep the growth going.

[lordmonar]

Word?   What word is that?  And transferring the does not fix the numbers just adds overhead.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Word?   What word is that?  And transferring the does not fix the numbers just adds overhead.

Word from my CC. I'm not going to question him on it. If he says he got a directive, I salute, try to save a few cadets from the ax, and if I can't report back that unfortunately he can file the paperwork to make them former members. Transfering to patron absolutely does fix the problem, as their safety currency is a non-factor.

[Eclipse]

And?   You have yet to show that 'fixing' the issue fixed anything.

No, you're simply ignoring reality.

[Fubar]

On the football team? Great, see you in 3 months, please keep in touch and do your safety briefs online.

Why? If they are not participating, then there is no requirement to be safety current.

[Eclipse]

On the football team? Great, see you in 3 months, please keep in touch and do your safety briefs online.

Why? If they are not participating, then there is no requirement to be safety current.

Because NHQ considers the 4 minutes it takes to redo knife safety the absolute bare minimum
to be considered an "active member".

If that is too much, you're not an asset, nor are you being served.  Concentrate on whatever is more
shiny to you and move on.

[lordmonar]

Site please

[Майор Хаткевич]

On the football team? Great, see you in 3 months, please keep in touch and do your safety briefs online.

Why? If they are not participating, then there is no requirement to be safety current.

It is when it's coming down from wing. Until NHQ makes an "inactive" button for commanders to put those people under, they are listed as active members, who are out of safety currency.

[Eclipse]

Site please

Agreed.

[vorteks]

Site please

http://capmembers.com

[Alaric]

Site Cite please

FYFY

[AirAux]

I have heard that someone getting 2B'ed is flagged at National and not allowed to rejoin.  Do you really want to lose a possible lifetime asset because they missed three meetings or safety requirements as a 12 year old cadet?  As Ned said, 2B'ing is for serious discipline problems.  Your mentality appears to be that of a bully.  We are not here to ruin peoples lives.  We are here to help them.  I have been a member 37 years.  I have been a Deputy Commander or Commander 22 of those years.  I have never 2B'ed anyone.  I have represented CAP in several 2B actions and during the investigation stage almost all of the attention is on the person issuing the 2B and many Squadron members, including other cadets will be asked about your actions.  Again, Govern Yourself Accordingly.

[LSThiker]

I have heard that someone getting 2B'ed is flagged at National and not allowed to rejoin.  Do you really want to lose a possible lifetime asset because they missed three meetings or safety requirements as a 12 year old cadet? 

Depends.  While a 2B can get you kicked out permanently, that is not always the case.  We had a Squadron Commander 2B a cadet for lack of attendance and progression.  He later rejoined the program as a senior member without any problems.  YMMV.

[Eclipse]

during the investigation stage almost all of the attention is on the person issuing the 2B and many Squadron members, including other cadets will be asked about your actions. 

This is the reason you run a unit by the book and aboveboard, then you're not concerned about "attention".  Shying away from
appropriate personnel actions because you don't want "attention" is dereliction of duty.

In regards to a termination for non-participation or lack of progression, I can't begin to imagine why there would be any
"investigation" to start with.  We're generally talking about people who don't show up and have no interest in CAP.  Many wouldn't even
notice.  Assuming their was a hearing, why would anyone involve other cadets?

Also, for the record, when >any< member is terminated at the unit level, the appeal is to either Group or Wing (the next echelon).
Since I wouldn't terminate a member without discussing the matter with the next echelon, that issue is closed, since any appeal
would be denied upon submittal.  Beyond that, it's a MARB case and not likely to be considered (since all the i's would be dotted, etc.)

There's only one question: "Did the cadet participate to the satisfaction of the CC and / or progress at a reasonable rate (generally still considered
to be at least once every 6 months, but that's a subjective call).  If either or both parts are "no", there's no appeal.

I have heard that someone getting 2B'ed is flagged at National and not allowed to rejoin.  Do you really want to lose a possible lifetime asset because they missed three meetings or safety requirements as a 12 year old cadet? 

Depends.  While a 2B can get you kicked out permanently, that is not always the case.  We had a Squadron Commander 2B a cadet for lack of attendance and progression.  He later rejoined the program as a senior member without any problems.  YMMV.

+1 The only reason a former member would be "flagged" would be for gross disciplinary issues, of which "just never showed up"
isn't generally going to be one of them, especially for a cadet, but even for a senior. 

Asking "What's different this time around?" would be fair game, though.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I have heard that someone getting 2B'ed is flagged at National and not allowed to rejoin.  Do you really want to lose a possible lifetime asset because they missed three meetings or safety requirements as a 12 year old cadet?  As Ned said, 2B'ing is for serious discipline problems.  Your mentality appears to be that of a bully.  We are not here to ruin peoples lives.  We are here to help them.  I have been a member 37 years.  I have been a Deputy Commander or Commander 22 of those years.  I have never 2B'ed anyone.  I have represented CAP in several 2B actions and during the investigation stage almost all of the attention is on the person issuing the 2B and many Squadron members, including other cadets will be asked about your actions.  Again, Govern Yourself Accordingly.

A misconduct 2b may flag them, any of the other reasons listed on the form? No.

2b, again, is not a lifetime banhammer, it's a form to end somones membership in CAP. That. Is. All.

Never 2b'd anyone? Is that supposed to be an accomplishment? I think of NIN as a BTDT type of guy. He's done it plenty. Still would say he's been one of the better commanders I've heard of.

Being a bully? Seriously? Next thing you'll say is that the proper way to terminate membership is hazing too.

Take a look at my topic about the online cadet application, and the commitment the cadet and parent needs to check off before being able to submit the application.

CAPR 52-16, 39-2, and yes, even CAPF 2B are on my side of this.

[JeffDG]

Also, for the record, when >any< member is terminated at the unit level, the appeal is to either Group or Wing (the next echelon).
Since I wouldn't terminate a member without discussing the matter with the next echelon, that issue is closed, since any appeal
would be denied upon submittal.  Beyond that, it's a MARB case and not likely to be considered (since all the i's would be dotted, etc.)

Pre-coordination of an action with the echelon to whom the appeal is vested could easily be challenged as a fundamental breech of due process.  So, all your "i"s would actually be crossed, not dotted.

[Eclipse]

Pre-coordination of an action with the echelon to whom the appeal is vested could easily be challenged as a fundamental breech of due process.  So, all your "i"s would actually be crossed, not dotted.

Consulting your superiors is not a "breach of process", if anything it >is< the process.

There isn't a wing CC in this organization who would tell you not to consult with them or the JA if you're concerned
in regards to a termination action, nor a JA or IG who would respond "I can't discuss this issue as it might be appealed."

There have been any number of times where I have been sent VFR-Direct to NHQ Legal for one thing or another,
including disciplinary issues.  Who does the "breach of process" appeal go to then? The Supreme Court of Civil Air Patrol?

[JeffDG]

Pre-coordination of an action with the echelon to whom the appeal is vested could easily be challenged as a fundamental breech of due process.  So, all your "i"s would actually be crossed, not dotted.

Consulting your superiors is not a "breach of process", if anything it >is< the process.

There isn't a wing CC in this organization who would tell you not to consult with them or the JA if you're concerned
in regards to a termination action, nor a JA or IG who would respond "I can't discuss this issue as it might be appealed."

There have been any number of times where I have been sent VFR-Direct to NHQ Legal for one thing or another,
including disciplinary issues.  Who does the "breach of process" appeal go to then? The Supreme Court of Civil Air Patrol?

So, you consider it appropriate to have an action pre-approved by the person to whom an appeal would be decided by?

Were I a Group Commander and a squadron commander did this, I would advise the Wing Commander to appoint another Group Commander to hear the appeal.

That effectively makes the appeal pre-decided, and that is a fundamental denial of due process.

And the MARP has authority to deal with decisions reached without due process.