What constitutes "active participation"?

[Eclipse]

Two separate threads.

Trying to connect them doesn't make your argument better,
or your quotes applicable.  I've made my reasoning clear on the
empty shirt issue and the integrity issues of misrepresenting CAP's numbers.

[AirAux]

So, is the Corporation not being truthful when they report these numbers to Congress?  They know that 1/3 of the members are empty shirts?  Is it still an integrity thing when our leaders do it??

[Eclipse]

So, is the Corporation not being truthful when they report these numbers to Congress?  They know that 1/3 of the members are empty shirts?  Is it still an integrity thing when our leaders do it??

Have you ever actually read anything I, and others, have written and said on this issue?

There's your answer...

[JeffDG]

Where in the regs does it say you MUST 2b your empty shirts.

It's another of those imaginary rules in Eclipse's head, like the pre-notification that he says is part of the "NHQ designed process" but he can't seem to cite.

Someday, I'd really like to get all these designs out of Eclipse's head....they seem fascinating, even if not actually real.

[JeffDG]

C'mon guys, I skipped breakfast and everything this morning.  I'm hungry and still waiting for someone to do something to make me eat my hat.

If just one person can square the circle where a Group Commander who advised a Squadron Commander that he was good with a 2B is not "predisposed" towards finding that his advice was good, not guaranteed, simply predisposition is enough, then I'll eat my hat.

[Eclipse]

Where in the regs does it say you MUST 2b your empty shirts.

It's another of those imaginary rules in Eclipse's head, like the pre-notification that he says is part of the "NHQ designed process" but he can't seem to cite.

Someday, I'd really like to get all these designs out of Eclipse's head....they seem fascinating, even if not actually real.

Again, this is not an assertion I have ever made, so in this case, yeah, not real, but if it helps your narrative to keep repeating it,
I guess you will.

If just one person can square the circle where a Group Commander who advised a Squadron Commander that he was good with a 2B is not "predisposed" towards finding that his advice was good, not guaranteed, simply predisposition is enough, then I'll eat my hat.

I would suggest Kashi GoLean or perhaps FiberOne.  My understanding is they can be quite "clarifying", since no one
is going to provide you with a citation which is unnecessary to the conversation.  Simply repeating your unsupported assertions,
and asking people to "prove the negative" perpetuates the thread, but it's not going to change the requirements or the process.

If you aren't comfortable with the level of due process provided by NHQ, take it up the chain.

Seriously, eventually even the wall gets tired of it.

[JeffDG]

If you aren't comfortable with the level of due process provided by NHQ, take it up the chain.

I'm not claiming to know the mind of the secret halls of NHQ like you.

My group does it right.

[FW]

I just finished my second cup of coffee.  If a squadron commander informs their group commander of an impending 2b action, and the group commander is ok with it, I doubt there would be a problem.  If a squadron commander has written documentation of progressive disciplinary actions taken on a member, and asks for advice, I don't think it would be a conflict of interest, however I may be tempted to recuse during an appeal.

If a group commander tells a squadron commander to initiate a 2b action for a member in their command; that would be a conflict.  The group commander is the defacto initiator and approving authority in this case.  Bad...

I think 35-3 is very clear on the subject of notification.  My examples noted above are open to interpretation, however I like to err on the conservative side. Let the lowest level commander make the decision without getting involved in the process until needed.

[BHartman007]

I've been in my squadron almost two years, and there are several cadets on the roster I've never seen. Several seniors, too.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I've been in my squadron almost two years, and there are several cadets on the roster I've never seen. Several seniors, too.

On the SM side...my personal opinion is "whatever". I'd move them to Patron Status, and keep in the unit, but to each his own.


On the cadet side...always have to wonder why they bother renewing. Unless it's a parent "padding" the college resume with non-accomplishment in various organizations.

[RangerConlin]

Question: In terms of membership numbers reported, do they include patron members and congressional members?

[FW]

Last I heard, reported membership numbers include Active, Patron, Congressional, Legislative, CSMs, and AE members. "Active" members reported may be really "active" or "empty shirts", and those members in "000" units.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Isn't 000 the very definition of "empty shirt"? Besides those stuck due to unit closings...

[lordmonar]

Well.    No one has really defined an empty shirt yet as per the regs......so no.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Well.    No one has really defined an empty shirt yet as per the regs......so no.

There's literal restrictions on what they can do.

[lordmonar]

Restrictions on who?

[RangerConlin]

All those not regular members. 

Regarding empty shirt, since all patron, legislative, etc are essentially empty shirts in the numbers reported since they can't do anything.

[Eclipse]

Not all members in 000 are Patrons, at least by design, and not all wings push those in 000 to patron.

The lack of a proper CC for 000 causes some practical issues, but at least technically non-patrons
in 000 can pretty much do whatever they want until there is something that needs a CCs approval,
and then the Wing CC (or anyone else with the proper pen) can punch those tickets.

[AirAux]

Since one wants to 2'B members who are not safety current, one might note that unless an activity requires a GES card to participate, the Unit Commander may waive safety requirements, thereby cleaning up that ugly safety currency requirement...

[vorteks]

What excuse could someone possibly have for not staying safety current? It's so easy it can literally be accomplished while sitting in front of a computer in your underwear in the space of a few minutes. If you don't have a computer (who doesn't these days?), show up at a safety briefing once in a while. Not being safety current over a period of time is just another indication that a member isn't interested in participating. Why waive the requirements for those folks? Communicate the expectations, then say goodbye to the disinterested member if they don't play ball.