Musing on a Former Active now Patron Member

[Angus]

So a couple months ago I submitted my paper work to change my status to Patron from Active.  I made the decision because of a number of external factors that were creating a hard time for me to participate as actively as I would like.  But now that I don't have the same level of responsibility I've come to find a couple things interesting that I'd like to muse on.

First it's nice to not have to worry about is my hair regulation length? Now yes I know as senior members we can grow our hair longer and just switch to the Corporate variants but I've been more a blues type of person.  When I come back active I'm probably going to switch over to just corporate uniforms since I've missed having my hair longer. 

But it also feels weird now that I'm only a Patron and living in an area about to get hit with a Blizzard over the next 36 hours I find myself feeling so useless.  I hate to sound like Napoleon Dynamite, but "I got skills" and now I can't use them.  Same happened this weekend when I saw an email about a SAREX we had and an MSO was needed, I had to stop myself from sending in that email volunteering myself to help out.  It's times like this I wish we had a reserve activation clause for Patrons with training.

[JeffDG]

That's actually kind of sad.

Here we have a member with skills who decided to hang up the Active member role and become a Patron.  As an active member, maintaining basic safety currency, he'd be an asset that could be called upon when needed...a real force multiplier.  Especially an MSO, who thanks to the ICS-400 requirement, are few and far between among our volunteer membership.

But instead, we have an attitude among some that if you cannot dedicate everything to CAP, that you're an "empty shirt" and should be run out of the organization.

If I were you, I would return to "ACTIVE" status in a unit that's willing to work with you and keep you current and available when required.  Just hope you don't end up under the command of one of the empty-shirt nazis though, because then instead of making use of what you can offer, you'll be insulted and pushed out.

[Nuke52]

"empty shirt...."

Eclipse's rebuttal in:  3... 2... 1...

[Angus]

If I were you, I would return to "ACTIVE" status in a unit that's willing to work with you and keep you current and available when required.  Just hope you don't end up under the command of one of the empty-shirt nazis though, because then instead of making use of what you can offer, you'll be insulted and pushed out.

My unit was they were very understanding with the other responsibilities I had to contend with.  This was my decision because I don't like being an "empty shirt" member.  If I'm going to be listed as an Active Member call me crazy but I want to actually be ACTIVE.  I know I'm going to lose my quals by the time I'm able to come back but thankfully I'll still be within the span to just do advanced tasks to get the quals back.  I may lose my ground quals though but I'll just do the two weeks at NESA and get them back at that point.   

[Eclipse]

But instead, we have an attitude among some that if you cannot dedicate everything to CAP, that you're an "empty shirt" and should be run out of the organization.

If the above helps your narrative, so be it.

It's not what I, or anyone who agrees with me has said, nor does it properly characterize the situation.

If I'm going to be listed as an Active Member call me crazy but I want to actually be ACTIVE.

Well, what do you know....

[Angus]

If I'm going to be listed as an Active Member call me crazy but I want to actually be ACTIVE.

Well, what do you know....

I know, there are a few of us still around who think Active means Active.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Jeff posts his argument that agrees with what some of us are saying "at least stay safety current on hiatus", but then proceeds to turn this into an empty shirt discussion. Nice.

[LSThiker]

But instead, we have an attitude among some that if you cannot dedicate everything to CAP, that you're an "empty shirt" and should be run out of the organization.

If the above helps your narrative, so be it.

It's not what I, or anyone who agrees with me has said, nor does it properly characterize the situation.

I re-read his post and do not see where he is implying you.

However, in my experience, there are a number of people outside of you that believe if you are not fully active, then you are worthless "empty shirt". 

[lordmonar]

Why stay safety current?
Why ask some one who is on hiatus to stay safety current? 
Where is the value added?

[Eclipse]

Ask NHQ, it's their standard.

You have to draw a line somwhere.

[lordmonar]

Ask NHQ, it's their standard.

You have to draw a line somwhere.

No....it is not their standard.   The standard is if you are not safety current you cannot participate in CAP activities.

a. All active CAP members (seniors, cadets, cadet sponsors, 50 year and life members) must maintain monthly safety education briefing currency in order to participate in any CAP functions, with exception of meetings where members may attend for the purpose of completing the required safety education. The monthly requirement expires at the end of the month following its completion (e.g., a briefing attended or completed on 15 June will carry currency through to 31 July). Completion of required safety education will be documented in the National online safety education database so that currency can be reviewed through eServices.

And it is waiver-able.

f. Commanders at any level may waive all safety education requirements for meetings or activities which do not require a General Emergency Services (GES) rating if, in the opinion of the commander, such waiver serves the best interests of CAP. An example of a situation which might justify such a waiver includes meeting attendance by legislators or distinguished visitors who happen to be CAP members; however, regularly scheduled unit meetings, whether or not they require GES ratings (see above), still require regular safety education and operational risk safety briefings under this regulation, since fire prevention and general housekeeping, warehouse (storage) and hazard communication are valid safety requirements for regularly scheduled meetings and unit facilities. Waivers of safety education requirements should be the exception, not the rule.

I just re-read 62-1.....no where does it say you got to transfer or terminate anyone for failing to do the required monthly safety education.

Like you keep saying.....if you just follow the regs.....we would not have many of these conversations.

I assert that CAP leaders at all level have taken "safety compliance" as some sort of report card.    But it is not supported as far as I know any regulation or any published policy by NHQ.

So....to use your favorite line.....if it is NHQ's standard.....Cite Please.

[RiverAux]

I could show up 1 day every 2 years and be "ready" to go on a mission in about 10 minutes without having to do a lick of work in the meantime.  Just would need to do a quick online safety quiz so I could print a current 101 before walking out the door.   

Heck, I'm not really far from that status now. 

[lordmonar]

I could show up 1 day every 2 years and be "ready" to go on a mission in about 10 minutes without having to do a lick of work in the meantime.  Just would need to do a quick online safety quiz so I could print a current 101 before walking out the door.   

Heck, I'm not really far from that status now.

Well....no...somewhere between your last safety currency and some undefined "we have never heard of this guy" You would have been transferred to 000, patron status, or 2b'ed.

[RiverAux]

Not necessarily.  Depends on how much the locals care about keeping their roster clean. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

Ask NHQ, it's their standard.

You have to draw a line somwhere.

No....it is not their standard.   The standard is if you are not safety current you cannot participate in CAP activities.

a. All active CAP members (seniors, cadets, cadet sponsors, 50 year and life members) must maintain monthly safety education briefing currency in order to participate in any CAP functions, with exception of meetings where members may attend for the purpose of completing the required safety education. The monthly requirement expires at the end of the month following its completion (e.g., a briefing attended or completed on 15 June will carry currency through to 31 July). Completion of required safety education will be documented in the National online safety education database so that currency can be reviewed through eServices.

And it is waiver-able.

f. Commanders at any level may waive all safety education requirements for meetings or activities which do not require a General Emergency Services (GES) rating if, in the opinion of the commander, such waiver serves the best interests of CAP. An example of a situation which might justify such a waiver includes meeting attendance by legislators or distinguished visitors who happen to be CAP members; however, regularly scheduled unit meetings, whether or not they require GES ratings (see above), still require regular safety education and operational risk safety briefings under this regulation, since fire prevention and general housekeeping, warehouse (storage) and hazard communication are valid safety requirements for regularly scheduled meetings and unit facilities. Waivers of safety education requirements should be the exception, not the rule.

I just re-read 62-1.....no where does it say you got to transfer or terminate anyone for failing to do the required monthly safety education.

Like you keep saying.....if you just follow the regs.....we would not have many of these conversations.

I assert that CAP leaders at all level have taken "safety compliance" as some sort of report card.    But it is not supported as far as I know any regulation or any published policy by NHQ.

So....to use your favorite line.....if it is NHQ's standard.....Cite Please.

I'm sure you can look up ILWG staff, and send them an email, asking why they expect near 100% safety compliance, even from members who are on hiatus/inactive, etc.

[lordmonar]

Or you can challenge them on it just like I do here in NVWG

[Eclipse]

I just re-read 62-1.....no where does it say you got to transfer or terminate anyone for failing to do the required monthly safety education.

62-1 isn't a reg about personnel matters. Also, no one, certainly not me, has ever said you "got to".
What I and others have said is that it is a matter of integrity and best practice that an organization,
especially one with government funding and which is counted on as asset in times of distress,
both know and report their member strength appropriately and as correctly as possible.

And "waivers" are for "exceptions", as indicated.

We've already established that the bar for cadet termination is missing 3 meetings without an excuse. 

There is no "standard" for seniors, it is 100% subjective to the commander making the decision.
However with that said, NHQ has already established that someone out of safety isn't "active" as,
without benefit of an exception they can't do >anything<.  It's not just missions, it's >anything<.
No staff service, no PD, >nothing<.  And exception or no, the system locks the member out until the
situation is corrected, making "exceptions" all but moot.

So for the sake of argument, I would say it's reasonable, as a general rule of thumb, to start the "active member"
conversation at "safety currency" and / or "missed 3 meetings without an excuse".  Someone who isn't attending
meetings and can't be bothered to kill 4 minutes a month to stay off the report and help his CC avoid higher HQ heat.
AFAIC, isn't an asset to be counted on. 

And there is simply no conversation worth having about the "Dunno, never seen the guys..." They should not be on the books
as anything but patrons.

Now, because not all units meet weekly (or even monthly with say Groups) the interval of those "3 meetings" is up to the CC,
and the expectation should be clearly spelled out to the respective members.

Hoping someone "might" show up and ticket punch safety at the last minute because the CAP activity is
marginally more interesting then the Tivo queue is no way to run an organization that purports to save life and property.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Or you can challenge them on it just like I do here in NVWG

I'm just a lowly squadron staffer. If I ever get sucked into a CC spot, we'll talk. Doesn't change the fact that if someone is months out of currency, chances are they aren't interested in CAP, at least right now, and for SMs, Patron is not a bad place to go.

Now if only eservices did not show patrons as expired on safety...

[Eclipse]

Or you can challenge them on it just like I do here in NVWG

"Challenge them?" So now we have NCOs challenging the commanders on policy?

How does that work, exactly?

[lordmonar]

You write a logical thoughtful respectful paper stating your position and give it to those in command.  It what NCOs do all the time.