What constitutes "active participation"?

[Eclipse]

After publication date of the new policy, unit CC contacts all members on his roster and
ascertains the current interest in CAP participation, moving anyone to Patron status (w/ xfer to 996)
who is unresponsive or indicates "no interest" - this resets the clock for every one and clears the
books of the members with 100### series CAP IDs no one has ever seen. 50% of the problem is
fixed immediately.

From there:

No safety currency = "inactive".
"inactive" members are removed from all reporting in regards to readiness, and qualifications.
Any publication of membership numbers is required to subtract the day's "inactive" members.

90 days in "inactive" state = "at risk". This status is purely for reporting purposes and to
indicate to all levels the number of members who are "at risk" for termination or patron status.

No contact for 6 months, or indication after contact that they "won't be participating any time soon", patron.

Members who wish to be "safed" from patron status, such as deployed military, sick leave, or who otherwise
are considered "excused" are placed into "inactive reserve".  The also barred from any participation until
removed from this status, and their numbers are filtered from reporting for readiness and qualifications.
Members may not be "safed" for more then one calendar year, nor can they be "re-safed" without
30 days of active status.

Members in inactive status of any kind do not accrue TIG towards promotion or specialties during the periods they are inactive
(that alone would fix a lot of the issues as we have far too many people who get slotted into a job, wander off
and don't come back until they want a new pin or higher grade.)

All automatic, requires no action by the unit CC except to make exceptions if warranted.

Done.

[lordmonar]

So....inactive is not safety current.

That's your only criteria?

[Eclipse]

No, and that's not what it says up there either, it's one of several criteria.

You need to get over and past the fact that NHQ has defined this as the bare-minimum
for a member to be considered "active".  Anything less and, by regulation, they
aren't allowed to do anything in CAP except for getting current.  Waivers, by regulation,
are to be exceptions (and why any CC would even entertain the idea is beyond me).

A much better solution would be to actually track attendance and participation - perhaps
another ribbon for annual minimum participation would stir men's souls - but until then,
Safety currency is the only touchstone CAP has, and a pretty darn good indicator of
interest, whether by design or not.

Other criteria for being placed in "inactive" is stated above, and I would go further to
to say that the same level of "no show" as cadets is a reasonable expectation - miss three
meetings without an excuse, and you are put on the inactive list.  The rest is already there.

Groups and above would need adjusted criteria, since some don't meet regularly, but again,
safety currency is the bare-bones minimum.  Groups and Wings, etc., would be required to
publish an approved OI to deviate from the above, and publish their meeting schedule to
insure there is record-keeping.

Why?  Because there are only two ways to get that ticket punched - an in-face briefing, or
an online quiz (yeah, yeah, Wings, FASST, blah blah).  And that means that at least once every
30 days yo had to at least think about CAP for 10 minutes, or attend one meeting.

And before you go there, this isn't an effort to bounce people because they got sick, busy,
or otherwise can't make meetings - the key is the notification of the CC, and caring enough to
stay in contact for 10 minutes a month, beyond that, there are other avenues to voting off
members who serve no value to CAP or cause other issues.  This is focused on normalizing
the ranks and properly reporting, which, if people ever see the >REAL< numbers would be either a wake up
call or a panic, but either way no one is kidding themselves anymore.

And this isn't "extra effort" nor an ROI issue, since this is literally the job of the Personnel officer.

[lordmonar]

Okay....we got a basic.

If you are not safety current for 6 months...you get Patroned.

So....what if you maintain safety currency.........it's three meetings with out a valid excuse?

And yes you are adding admin burden....because right now.....there is no requirement for the personnel officers to do anything....now they have to keep track of attendance on an individual member level.

They have to make those phone calls.....and if after six months....they have initiate a Patron Transfer.

That's all more time you are adding to what they already have to do.

And like you said......Group, wing and regional guys will have different levels and rules for "attendance".

Do you see where I am going with this?

Sure the concept of "let's get rid of the empty shirts" sounds good.....but once you start putting down on paper it starts to get really ugly fast.

Then you of course forget about the time group and wing personnel will have to exert to ensure compliance.

And right now....all of this is done by hand.....E-Services does not have a way to enter attendance.   So that means written reports up to wing so they can verify that the units are cleaning up their books.

[Eclipse]

there is no requirement for the personnel officers to do anything

There's no requirement anyone do anything I guess.  So much for core values like excellence and integrity.
This is a Personnel Officer's >JOB<.

Do you see where I am going with this?

Yes, you've decided it's not worth your time because apparently your unit is a shining beacon that fits no
normal mold of CAP and therefore you can pick and choose which regs you can follow, which you can ignore,
and which are a "waste of time".

Then you of course forget about the time group and wing personnel will have to exert to ensure compliance.

I forget nothing.  This, AGAIN is THEIR JOB. Managing the organization is supposed to be an active process,
not a spectator sport.  The trouble is that many members at higher HQs, from Group on up, are so invested in
their own experiences and pet projects that they forget what their actual jobs are - and those are >not<
flying the planes, training cadets, installing radios, launching rockets, or any of the other wrench-turning that is supposed
to be reserved for the units.  Their singular mandate is managing the organization and providing the vision and resources
for the units to do the actual work.

The trouble is the organization is so shorthanded that in many cases the entire food chain for a respective department
in a wing is >one guy< and he's off "flying a CD mission" so he doesn't have time to do the job he's supposed to beyond
checking the boxes.

And that fundamental lack of active management and people doing their actual assigned jobs is the reason why all
these things that are a normal part of any successful organization seem like so much "extra work", because
"well if I do that, when will I have time to fly?"

If we had a clue who the real members are, and some pressure to increase REAL MEMBERSHIP, there would be plenty of
people to do ONE JOB, and things like this would be EXPECTED not "extra".

Tell me, please, how long any USAF unit would last if 2/3rds of the membership were AWOL most of the time?
Or showed up, "when they felt like it" and only did "what they felt like"?
And further, how you'd even know who's missing when you haven't even met 1/3rd of them?

[lordmonar]

First off......CAP is NOT the USAF....especially not the AD USAF.

We are more like a guard or reserve unit........where 2/3 of the people are in fact AWOL most of the time....they are there just for the one week end a month and two weeks a year.......and sometimes not even for that.   Depending on the unit and mission their duty time is often very different.

Second....what reg am I ignoring?    If your idea were to be put into a reg....then yes I would have to follow it.   I am just pointing out that if your idea were to be implemented.....then you would increase the work load of the personnel officers.

Sure it would be their job.    but as we keep saying.....we are already stressed and overworked/undermanned........this idea of yours would make that worse.

Finally....as you pointed out we are short handed.  And until that issue is fixed.....we need to focus on getting the mission done vice getting all the paper work done.   So the Wing Personnel Officer choosing to fly CD missions....instead of doing his other job is simply someone making a priority call.  We all have to do it....every day.  We have to decide what our priorities are.   Do I go to work, go to my son's soccer game, go to school, do chores around the house, walk the dog.  Which one of my CAP jobs do I do?   My admin job, my ES job, my wing job.   We got to do this all the time. 

So.......we decide to add this admin burden.

We clean up the empty shirts.
We can report "real" numbers for once.

And we (CAP in general, and Units Specifically) get in return for all this work?

We are still short manned....but now we got more work to do.

[Eclipse]

First off......CAP is NOT the USAF....especially not the AD USAF.

So, you're not going to answer the question then?  Change it to "any company", or the fire department, etc, if you can't get past "CAP isn't the USAF" as if that
means anything in the context of the question.

We are more like a guard or reserve unit........where 2/3 of the people are in fact AWOL most of the time....they are there just for the one week end a month and two weeks a year.......and sometimes not even for that.   Depending on the unit and mission their duty time is often very different.

You know that's not true, again in the context of the QUESTION, which is whether they can be counted on when >CALLED<
and participate in training and other exercises, which you well know is required by regulation and law when they raise their right hand.

Sure it would be their job.    but as we keep saying.....we are already stressed and overworked/undermanned........this idea of yours would make that worse.

This conversation goes nowhere if you don't read what is written, and remember what has been written.   It doesn't make it "worse", it removes an administrative burden
from the local units and then provides a CLEAR PICTURE of the manpower and situation CAP is actually in.  If a unit is too understaffed
to take 10 minutes to know who is actually a value to CAP, they have already failed in their mandates.

Finally....as you pointed out we are short handed.  And until that issue is fixed.....we need to focus on getting the mission done vice getting all the paper work done.

Again, surprising coming from someone who was in the military.  The "paperwork" is not separate from the mission.  And certainly an NCO should know
that the care, feeding, and appropriate culling of the flock is a core responsibility of the people charged with managing the program.

So the Wing Personnel Officer choosing to fly CD missions....instead of doing his other job is simply someone making a priority call.  We all have to do it....every day.  We have to decide what our priorities are.   

Missed the point completely - the wrench turners should not also be the managers. You're the one who advocates a real NCO corps in CAP,
yet you fail to recognize that CAP will never get there unless the above also comes to fruition.  The guy dispatching the trucks at UPS doesn't also drive them.  Why?
Because his job is dispatching them.  If he wants to drive, he has to give up dispatching and find someone else for the job.  No decisions at the organizational level are necessary.  If your response is "we don't have the people for that", you've made my point.

Which one of my CAP jobs do I do?   My admin job, my ES job, my wing job.   We got to do this all the time. 

You're only supposed to have >ONE<.

we decide to add this admin burden.

We clean up the empty shirts.
We can report "real" numbers for once.

It's not a "burden" it's the commander's >JOB<.

And we (CAP in general, and Units Specifically) get in return for all this work?

Less administrative work in maintaining empty files for empty shirts, no discussions with higher HQ about
missed currency and PD (among other mandates, which you have repeatedly said you are free to ignore on a whim).
The real picture of CAP and either the imperative to fix it or the imperative to shut it down, either way an end to
kidding themselves and wasting everyone's time.

We are still short manned....but now we got more work to do.

Some how you've decided "doing your job" and "less work ultimately" = "more work" with that
math, there's no where else to go with the conversation.

[Ned]

It seems a little silly to define "not safety current" as "inactive."

Mostly because it is simply not a useful criteria.  Anymore than, say, "not currently standing in uniform at the squadron headquarters" means that you are inactive.  Safety currency does not provide any meaningful data as to how many members can be present and performing duty within a reasonable period of time.

Because it literally takes less time to become safety current than it does to put on a uniform and drive to the squadron headquarters.

When I commanded a Guard MP unit, one of the most time intensive tasks was compiling the monthly Unit Status Report (USR), which was Uncle Sam's way to gather the data that Bob thinks is desperately needed by the CAP leadership.  We spend hours developing statistics on the number of personnel assigned, whether they were MOS qualified for their particular MTOE slot, how many were away at school, authorized leave, in transfer status seeking another unit in another state, on weight control, medically restricted, in civil confinement, pending discharge, etc., etc., etc.  Then came the equipment part - how many vehicles, commo, and weapons were in maintenance (and at what level), which equipment was back-ordered, etc.  Then came the training part - which of the collective and individual training had been accomplished, with documented training schedules, evaluations, etc.

All of it carefully placed on charts and briefed.  And re-briefed.  And briefed some more.

Since the USR was a "report card item" for the units, there was active gaming of the system -- soldiers were moved "on paper" into different slots to increase MOS qual rates.  Leave or transfer dates might be adjusted a day or two forward or back depending on the reporting period.  And of course, there were huge pressures and incentives to slow discharges and transfers to make the numbers look better, even if we knew the soldier had moved out of state.  (After all, in an true emergency, they could come back.)

So, be very, very careful what you wish for in this regard. Tracking this kind of readiness data is extremely time-intensive, and always creates odd incentives and unexpected effects as senior leaders emphasize different aspects of the numbers.

But perhaps most importantly, it seems largely a wasted effort.  When the balloon actually went up, units with lower USRs than ours were mobilized and deployed ahead of us.  When our nation needed us, chronic AWOLs appeared ready to do their bit.  Soldiers cancelled disability claims.  We made equipment work.  Units would magically "lateral transfer" surplus equipment and personnel to the mutual benefit of both.  Within two months I went from reporting 90% strength to over 130%.

But that's the Army for you.  I'm sure CAP could do a better job at it.

[JeffDG]

But perhaps most importantly, it seems largely a wasted effort.  When the balloon actually went up, units with lower USRs than ours were mobilized and deployed ahead of us.  When our nation needed us, chronic AWOLs appeared ready to do their bit.  Soldiers cancelled disability claims.  We made equipment work.  Units would magically "lateral transfer" surplus equipment and personnel to the mutual benefit of both.  Within two months I went from reporting 90% strength to over 130%.

But that's the Army for you.  I'm sure CAP could do a better job at it.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

I would venture to say that putting the level of administrative burden on volunteer members of CAP, for such minuscule (if any) benefit, would constitute FWA, if not legally, then morally.

[Майор Хаткевич]

But perhaps most importantly, it seems largely a wasted effort.  When the balloon actually went up, units with lower USRs than ours were mobilized and deployed ahead of us.  When our nation needed us, chronic AWOLs appeared ready to do their bit.  Soldiers cancelled disability claims.  We made equipment work.  Units would magically "lateral transfer" surplus equipment and personnel to the mutual benefit of both.  Within two months I went from reporting 90% strength to over 130%.

But that's the Army for you.  I'm sure CAP could do a better job at it.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

I would venture to say that putting the level of administrative burden on volunteer members of CAP, for such minuscule (if any) benefit, would constitute FWA, if not legally, then morally.

Would you take an member you haven't seen in months/years on a mission as your first choice? How about Katrina/Sandy level event?

[CAP_truth]

My 2 cent worth. CAP should activate a annual performance program similar to the ADAF or corporate world uses. We have the CAPF40 in place that could be used by OE program that could be used by units and uploaded to e-services for promotions, award recommendations, and SAV reviews.

[PHall]

But perhaps most importantly, it seems largely a wasted effort.  When the balloon actually went up, units with lower USRs than ours were mobilized and deployed ahead of us.  When our nation needed us, chronic AWOLs appeared ready to do their bit.  Soldiers cancelled disability claims.  We made equipment work.  Units would magically "lateral transfer" surplus equipment and personnel to the mutual benefit of both.  Within two months I went from reporting 90% strength to over 130%.

But that's the Army for you.  I'm sure CAP could do a better job at it.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

I would venture to say that putting the level of administrative burden on volunteer members of CAP, for such minuscule (if any) benefit, would constitute FWA, if not legally, then morally.

Would you take an member you haven't seen in months/years on a mission as your first choice? How about Katrina/Sandy level event?

If they were the one who showed up vs the "current in everything" member who didn't.

[Eclipse]

It seems a little silly to define "not safety current" as "inactive."

This is NHQ's definition.  It is also only >one< of the criteria for the above proposed policy.
Feel free to walk with Lord and continue to pretend it's all that is written.  That will insure the productivity of the discussion.

Safety currency does not provide any meaningful data as to how many members can be present and performing duty within a reasonable period of time.

No one said it did - but you can't do >anything< without it.

Because it literally takes less time to become safety current than it does to put on a uniform and drive to the squadron headquarters.

And yet...

But perhaps most importantly, it seems largely a wasted effort. 

So again we have someone form NHQ saying that knowing who your members are and whether your assets are serviceable is "a waste of time".

Considering that all this information is supposed to be available with a few clicks, that effort would be negligible if the data, most of it
required, was entered and maintained accurately on a regular basis, and CAP actually knew who their members were.

When the balloon actually went up, units with lower USRs than ours were mobilized and deployed ahead of us.  When our nation needed us, chronic AWOLs appeared ready to do their bit.  Soldiers cancelled disability claims.  We made equipment work.  Units would magically "lateral transfer" surplus equipment and personnel to the mutual benefit of both.  Within two months I went from reporting 90% strength to over 130%.

Citing the guard's inability to properly man and manage as a justification for CAP doing the same thing doesn't make the argument for anything but finger pointing.
This happens in CAP as well, and is ridiculous and demoralizing.  Members who participate regularly and are trained and proficient sit idly
by as twice-a-year members crawl out of the woodwork during the big game and are called up directly outside the chain because they
"know a guy".  I can tell you from personal experience that in most cases these low-timers are more trouble then they are worth and
significantly decrease CAP's actual capability, forcing a lot of missions and activities to be "brute-forced" on the backs of a small number
of people who actually do the real work, while the low-timers run into each other out in the rain in front of the cameras.
Reference Katrina and Sandy as easy examples. 

CAP pay years' worth of lip-service to being trained, qualified and proficient, not to mention spends a pretty good chunk of taxpayers and member
funding, and then when the waters star to rise, starts yelling for "all hands" because it was negligent in its mandate and doesn't have enough people who actually followed the rules.  This does not "stir men's souls" and in many cases results in "no thanks, pass" the next time training is "required", because in the end, it's only "pretend required".

The the organization wonders why it is not taken seriously in the ES community.

[lordmonar]

Eclipse.

Point is.

Right NOW....in today's CAP.

Doing what you suggest is stupid....yes I said stupid.

It ADDS admin burden on an already overstressed work force.

It does NOTHING to increase our readiness.


In a perfect world where squadrons all had 150 senior members with one job and one job only.   Where wing and groups where manned enough to actually help train, mentor and assist squadrons in their missions,  Where we had clear OPLAN taskings and Unit Manning Documents, and Unit Type Code assets, and SORTS reports........what you suggest would be important and helpful.

But not today. 

Not when the average sized squadron is only 20 people....and everyone who is not an empty shirt is wearing 2-3 hats.....and doing ES on the side, and "oh by the way why aren't you doing any external AE stuff?".

So.....again.

Sure...in a perfect world......anyone who misses more then three meetings is out!   But in the real world.  I would rather spend that 10 minutes a week on managing that......on my cadets, or doing AE,  or preparing for the next SAREX.....you know....our mission.

NHQ, USAF and Congress is perfectly aware of the state our personnel numbers.    They know all about empty shirts.   So there is no integrity issue,  we are not lying to anyone.   Fixing the numbers does not change our readiness status at all.   At the end of the day those ready and able to respond to a crisis will still be there.   Removing the empty shirts does not somehow multiply their numbers. 

That is why it would be a waste of time.    Added work....with no value added.

[Ned]

Bob,

You seem unusually feisty today. . .

Initially, it sounds like we agree that "safety currency" is not a useful criteria for determining unit or individual readiness or a member's ability to positively participate in the immediate future.

So far, so good.

But perhaps most importantly, it seems largely a wasted effort. 

So again we have someone form NHQ saying that knowing who your members are and whether your assets are serviceable is "a waste of time".

Bob, you are absolutely free to criticize me, but you're not allowed to put words in my mouth or quote me out of context.  That's just intellectually dishonest.

What I said was that detailed USR-like reporting systems are indeed largely a waste of time, for exactly the reasons I indicated.  It is time-intensive, and not reasonably related to a unit's ability to perform it's assigned taskings.  Particularly since CAP units do not have MTOE-style taskings ("be able to perform aerial search of X number of square miles of mountainous terrain, 2X square miles of non-mountainous terrain, for a period of Y days; provide Z mobile UDF teams that can sustain operations for NLT 48 hours; support and train X CAP Cadets by providing weekly meetings, and monthly activities, etc.)

This happens in CAP as well, and is ridiculous and demoralizing.  Members who participate regularly and are trained and proficient sit idly
by as twice-a-year members crawl out of the woodwork during the big game and are called up directly outside the chain because they
"know a guy".  I can tell you from personal experience that in most cases these low-timers are more trouble then they are worth and
significantly decrease CAP's actual capability, forcing a lot of missions and activities to be "brute-forced" on the backs of a small number
of people who actually do the real work, while the low-timers run into each other out in the rain in front of the cameras. Reference Katrina and Sandy
as easy examples.

Hmmm. Interesting. Sounds like you have seen some leadership issues unrelated to the qualifications and readiness of the units and members.

Members are either qualified and signed off for an ES qualification or they are not.  If the "low-timers" have their qualifications and show up ready to work, why on Earth would you not employ them in a given mission?  Sure, for a given task if I had multiple people to choose from, I might select the most qualified and experienced member, but to summarily exclude "low-timers" just because you have some more experienced folks seems a little . . . . short sighted.

Citing the guard's inability to properly man and manage as a justification for CAP doing the same thing doesn't balance.

Again, it may be your lack of military experience, but over-managing a process (something that Uncle Sam excels at in a military context) is certainly not the same thing as "inability to manage."

But thank you for your thoughts on the Guard.

[Eclipse]

You're welcome.

Beyond that, since CAP's reality doesn't match your narrative, there's not much more to be said that hasn't already been said, a dozen times.

[JeffDG]

But perhaps most importantly, it seems largely a wasted effort.  When the balloon actually went up, units with lower USRs than ours were mobilized and deployed ahead of us.  When our nation needed us, chronic AWOLs appeared ready to do their bit.  Soldiers cancelled disability claims.  We made equipment work.  Units would magically "lateral transfer" surplus equipment and personnel to the mutual benefit of both.  Within two months I went from reporting 90% strength to over 130%.

But that's the Army for you.  I'm sure CAP could do a better job at it.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

I would venture to say that putting the level of administrative burden on volunteer members of CAP, for such minuscule (if any) benefit, would constitute FWA, if not legally, then morally.

Would you take an member you haven't seen in months/years on a mission as your first choice? How about Katrina/Sandy level event?

Yes.

If they're qualified, use them.  What do I care if someone is going to a weekly meeting or not?  If they're qualified to do the job, I use them.

[Storm Chaser]

Qualified ≠ Proficient

[JeffDG]

Qualified ≠ Proficient

And what does going to a meeting every week have to do with either?

[Alaric]

Hmmm. Interesting. Sounds like you have seen some leadership issues unrelated to the qualifications and readiness of the units and members.

Members are either qualified and signed off for an ES qualification or they are not.  If the "low-timers" have their qualifications and show up ready to work, why on Earth would you not employ them in a given mission?  Sure, for a given task if I had multiple people to choose from, I might select the most qualified and experienced member, but to summarily exclude "low-timers" just because you have some more experienced folks seems a little . . . . short sighted.

Actually, my concern with the low-timers gets back to the idea of qualified versus proficient.  If someone gets signed off as an observer, doesn't show up to anything for two years and then when a "Sandy" type event happens, they may be technically qualified, but would I want them in the cockpit if I had other people, who had been to SAREX's and other training to do the work, not sure that would be a good idea.  The best advertisement for getting called back is by being able to do the job.  "qualified" people sometimes aren't