Mandatory 2b Hearings? A possible end to potential Abuse?

[Major Carrales]

Before I Begin, terms like "Mandatory" in CAP had often carried little weight due to the status of being Volunteers.  However, I submit that in the terms of certain procedures (ie. safety, procedural admin and cadet program admin) the use of the word and concept is justified.

Mandatory 2b Hearings:  Maybe all 2b's should be subject to a Group/Wing Level hearing as described by SMilin' Kach on another thread.  Kach mentioned that there were hardly implemented because it was not really worth it in a volunteer organization.

However, in the same thread we saw many instances and examples of what I call the CAPRR, Civil Air Patrol Railroad.  That is, where a commander abuses the system to get a person thrown out for trivial matters...or in a response to despotism et al.

Would it not be more regulated if a 2b, every 2b, had to have a hearing of Group Level, or Wing if the Wing has no Groups, to address these matters?

I know what some are thinking, that would bog down the process and we should concentrate on Mission Ops and Cadets.  That being said, I think this sort of thing would provide more safeguards and, by simple virtue of the fact that a "mandatory" 2b review board would lessen the number of "junk 2bs."

Plus, the review panel could exercise the same prerogative that the Supreme Court does in that it can chose its docket.  Thus, a 2b that is tabled or rejected for hearing would be "pocket vetoed," requiring a re-submittal.  The hearings would be held quarterly.  Commanders would be asked to "solve their problems at the lowest level first.

What say you?  Is this accountability?  Is this viable?  If not, can this be worked to viability?

[ZigZag911]

If this is done, the chairs of any such panels ought to be JAGs who are not presently serving as wing or region legal officers.

[MIKE]

The existing appeals process is not sufficient?

[MattPHS2002]

The existing appeals process is not sufficient?

I think what he is getting at is that some people are not told about them, thus by making it mandatory, Commanders would less easily be able to 2B someone because they don't like them.

[ZigZag911]

Unfortunately it is too vulnerable to command influence.

[Major Carrales]

If this is done, the chairs of any such panels ought to be JAGs who are not presently serving as wing or region legal officers.

Good point.  There is not real "judicial mechinism" currently in CAP other than these seldom used tribunals that no one know about.  What if it were staffed by...

1) Persons from other Groups...parts of the Wing.

2) Appointed personnel from CAP National or Region

3) Committee picked partially by the Wing and partically by High National Authority

You are correct, staffing of it is critical.

[Major Carrales]

The existing appeals process is not sufficient?

The current process has produced the horror stories in the other thread.  I would tell you this, if I was ever graced with a 2b...I would fight it.  Imagine my disgust if the so-called panel was "in name only."  Or done via the internet/e-mail?  Or if I was told no such thing existed (which was what I once got from an inquiryI made to someone years back on this matter)

Problem is a lot of our system is not in place.  That is how bogus 2bs get processed leaving people out in the cold.  I want to see a review board with some teeth (as well as other metaphorical organs!)

I will echo MattPHS2002's comment..."by making it mandatory, Commanders would less easily be able to 2B someone because they don't like them."

I am a Squadron Commander and have never used the 2b Process...I don't intend to do it soon nor do I look forward to ever doing it.  But I am one of those rare folks committed to the IDEAL of JUSTICE.  When I ever have to do such a thing I hope that the Officer or Cadet that I am going to 2b get a fair shake.  That my emotionalism, the type that so often accompanies a 2b, will be mitigated by a system of checks and balances.

[DHollywood]

Perhaps if members were more aware of the IG Program and the dispute resolution processes therein many problems would be resolved BEFORE a 2B was reached ??

IG's do much more that SUI's....

[IceNine]

Bingo, the IG should be the chair of these boards and there should be a formal investigation.  The comment made that these boards would bog down the system are irrelevant.  Removing someone from membership in the program should not be a fast track item, it should be well documented, investigated, confirmed and tracked. 

If there is not a substantial amount of documented misconduct there is no cause for a 2B.  If there is a trail of paperwork that shows escalation of misconduct and the discipline then there may be cause for a 2B.

[Major Carrales]

Well said J.Hendricks and DHollywood. 

Who is it on these boards that says, "let the system work."  We have to take these things seriously.

[wingnut]

Ya know when I kept hearing about 2b I thought

"2b or not 2b, --that is the question:--
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?"

slightly altered From Hamlet (III, i, 56-61)

Is the Commander Jealous of the Senior member

"O, beware, my lord of jealousy;
It is the green-ey'd monster which doth mock
The meat it feeds on."

--From Othello (III, iii, 165-167) Yes and Othello killed his wife by mistake!!!

or mabybe its REVENGE

[capchiro]

Gentlemen, I would submit that the current 2b system is adequate and well laid out in the Reg's.  If someone accuses or suspects that a unit commander is abusing the system, than that is when the IG should be notified and involved.  I would hope this is rare and not a common occurrence.  The other concern was about a member knowing his rights regarding the 2b status.  With any 2b action, the unit commander has to notify the member of the action.  With our Reg's being publicly accessable, I dare say that any member should be able to locate the Reg and read and understand the process and his/her rights.  I have not seen an abuse of the system personally in 35 years of experience.  I would imagine it could happen, but if there is a commander doing so, we probably have a bigger problem than the 2b.  I have heard of the occasional Napoleon commander, but not for long.  2b is a last option and if a commander is intelligent, he will consider other options and confer with a more experienced commander or group commander before getting involved in such things.  Very few members need to be 2b'ed and perhaps members seeing 2b actions in almost everything should be suspect.  JMHO

[JohnKachenmeister]

I think Capchiro is right.

There are two things that can be appealed:

1.  The incident(s) never happened, the 2b'ed member is innocent of what the commander accused him of.

or

2.  The incident(s) happened, and the officer did them, but they are of a trivial nature that a termination is not the appropriate response.

In the case of item #1, then fight it through a board.  Make the commander put his lying witnesses on the spot, and tear them up in cross examination.

In the case of #2, a well-written, reasoned letter to the reviewer can work wonders.  It still has to go to a board, but in a board of 3 officers if you can convince 2 that the incident does not warrant termination, you stay in.

(But I'd transfer to a new unit at light speed.)

Then there is the class of persons who KNOW they simply can't follow regulations; that they are special people for whom the regulations shouldn't apply.  They are the ones who, when faced with justifying their actions to three or more senior officers will take the easy way out and let the 30-day appeal window pass without action.  Farewell and adieu.

[jimmydeanno]

I have yet to see any abuses regarding people who have actually been 2b'd, but what I see is a failure from IG staff and legal to perform investigations and return any findings in cases that are clearly open and shut.  I understand the need for investigations not to be public, but the all too common approach of "maybe if we do nothing it will go away" just doesn't work.

The idea of a formal '2b board' is alright in my mind, it brings things out into the open for the member in question and can stop a lot of 'back door politics' that happen through e-mails, phone conversations, etc.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I have yet to see any abuses regarding people who have actually been 2b'd, but what I see is a failure from IG staff and legal to perform investigations and return any findings in cases that are clearly open and shut.  I understand the need for investigations not to be public, but the all too common approach of "maybe if we do nothing it will go away" just doesn't work.

The idea of a formal '2b board' is alright in my mind, it brings things out into the open for the member in question and can stop a lot of 'back door politics' that happen through e-mails, phone conversations, etc.

Two things, Jimmy:

1.  A formal board is mandatory under 35-3 if the Respondent officer or cadet requests it.

2.  The Wing Commander determines whether or not a formal IG inquiry is warranted. 

[sparks]

Ultimately it comes down to the integrity of the squadron and wing leadership. Good commanders with a decent IG will see that the 2b option isn't abused. It should be the last resort concerning cadet or senior behavior.

I have seen the system work as described in the regulation and also witnessed abuses under different management. It shouldn't be used to settle old or new scores but has been at the highest levels.

Creating a new list of rules won't change the prosecution and abuse of them only better managers/officers will accomplish that.

Enforcing the current regulation and appointing IGs independent of the wing/region/national commander would be a good start.

[ZigZag911]

IG ordinarily conducts the investigation, and therefore should not chair the review/appeal board...in this country, we don't have 'investigating magistrates'.

Any such board should be independent and objective.

[Major Carrales]

Enforcing the current regulation and appointing IGs independent of the wing/region/national commander would be a good start.

I think holding mandatory hearings is that "enforcement."  Even if these hearings expose more than just an expulsion.  Sometimes you have to insure there is a lightbulb that works in the socket to illumante the scattering roaches.

[tribalelder]

"There are two things that can be appealed:

1.  The incident(s) never happened, the 2b'ed member is innocent of what the commander accused him of.

or

2.  The incident(s) happened, and the officer did them, but they are of a trivial nature that a termination is not the appropriate response."

I've been a party to 30+ over the years.

I've coached initiating CC's.

I've been the Appeal Authority -- the Group Commander-- on a bunch of membership terminations. 

I've chaired one appeal board.

As John K. (excuse the informality, please) has observed, it'as always a question of the facts AND what they mean. 

However, comply with procedure.  Time limits, confirmable delivery of notices...

The initiating CC needs to advise the Appeal Authority FIRST.  There is nothing better than preparedness--have a board lined up AND a couple of dates picked that fit within the time window before that 2b notice goes out.  Offer them to the respondent, but he has to make a written request for hearing.

"An Appeal Board has been appointed; in the event you make a written request for a hearing in this matter, the following dates are available for the hearing (Insert dates, times).  Alternate dates may also be available."

When  the CC and Appeal Authority are ready for hearing, the cases where the CC is right will be unlikely to go to hearing.   

If you love CAP, you will hate doing 2b's, but you also know you need to-hopefully rarely.

[JohnKachenmeister]

When I commanded a company in the Army, I sometimes had to do Article 15 actions.  Before I did so, I would:

1.  Notify my boss, the CG, that I intended to Article 15 a trooper, and why.

2.  Notify the SJA, and review with him the necesary elements of the offense.

3.  Notify the Trial Defense Service, so they could have a lawyer ready to meet with the trooper to advise him.

This made for a smooth and court-martial free environment for the Article 15.  The best compliment I received was on one of the last ones I ran.  The soldier carried on about his innocence to the Trial Defense Attorney.  The lawyer then asked what unit the soldier was in, and upon hearing that it was my company advsied him to accept the Article 15, but to allow him to speak to some of the charges in mitigation.  The lawyer told the soldier, "I know Captain Kachenmeister will be fair, and I trust him to come to a fair judgement."

Your 2b action should be approached with just that much preparation...and fairness.
 

[tribalelder]

"Your 2b action should be approached with just that much preparation...and fairness."

Yes, indeed.  The relevant issue is how did, does or will this conduct hurt Civil Air Patrol.  It is not about preserving the majesty (or ego) of a squadron, group or wing CC.

[O-Rex]

the following is a sample letter from CAPR 39-3.  Assuming that CC's are sending these, it does inform the Member of his or her rights:

SUBJECT: Termination of CAP Membership, CAPR 35-3
TO:________________________________________
1. For the reasons indicated below, I hereby propose to terminate your membership in the
Civil Air Patrol. (The reasons should be drawn from paragraphs 3 and 4 of this
regulation. Reasons will be explicit, giving times, dates, and places, and will set out any
details as concisely as possible.)
EXAMPLE
(for senior member)
a. Reason: CAPR 35-3, paragraph 4b(7). Serious or willful violations of CAP
regulations or directives. On 24 February 1980, you hand propped the engine of a
corporate owned Cessna 182D, N8703X, without a qualified person at the controls,
causing considerable damage to the aircraft and in direct violation of CAPR 60-1,
paragraph 2-2.
or
(for cadet member)
b. Reason: CAPR 35-3, paragraph 3d. Misconduct. On or about 4 May 1980, while in
a cadet uniform, you engaged in a public altercation with a visiting dignitary from
National Headquarters.
2. Upon receipt of this letter, you are in a suspended status and will not be authorized to
participate in CAP activities or represent the corporation in any capacity.
3. You have the right to appeal this termination action. If you do not wish to appeal,
please return your membership card and all other CAP property in your possession to
your unit of assignment.
4. If you wish to exercise your right of appeal, you must submit a letter of appeal in two
copies, one copy to (unit commander initiating termination action) and the other copy to
(the approving authority), within 30 days from the postmark on this letter; otherwise, no
right of appeal exists. Your letter should state in detail the reasons why your membership
should not be terminated. Your rights and the appeal procedures are set forth in the
attached copy of CAPR 35-3.
_________________________ 1 Atch
(Initiating Unit Commander's Signature) CAPR 35-3

[SeattleSarge]

Ultimately it comes down to the integrity of the squadron and wing leadership. Good commanders with a decent IG will see that the 2b option isn't abused.

What happens when integrity, leadership, and an objective IG are missing?  I agree, 2b hearings should be mandatory. 

[DHollywood]

If you dont find an objective IG at the Group or Wing level you can go to the Regional and even National level... seek and you will find an objective IG.

IMHAO

[ZigZag911]

If you dont find an objective IG at the Group or Wing level you can go to the Regional and even National level... seek and you will find an objective IG.

IMHAO

If only that were the case!

It varies greatly from one area to the next....many senior commanders view IGs as 'their' watchdogs, pursuing wrongdoers and keeping their wing/region out of the media's attention!

They bring a corporate rather than a military mentality to the process....which, actually, sometimes crops up in The Real Military as well.

An IG, by tradition if not by regulation, is supposed to be almost like an umpire -- "I calls 'em as I sees 'em" -- ensuring that the mission can be accomplished, the integrity of the organization is safeguarded, and the rights and physical well-being of the members are protected.

CAP has an unfortunate tendency toward undue command influence of those in roles such as inspectors and review boards.

It is something we need to cease if the military and our civilian peers in ES are ever going to take us seriously.

[Eagle400]

CAP has an unfortunate tendency toward undue command influence of those in roles such as inspectors and review boards.

Yes.  And until there is better oversight of CAP, this will continue to happen.  I don't know why CAP-USAF trusts CAP so much when there is overwhelming evidence that the leaders of CAP can't follow their own regulations.

CAP has been afflicted with 'Good Ole Boy Club Syndrome' and it affects many people in the organization.  It carries with it an attitude that compliance with regulations is optional, and that covering up scandals/abuses for the sake of others' credibility is more important.     

It is something we need to cease if the military and our civilian peers in ES are ever going to take us seriously.

Agreed.  I am of the firm belief that the change needs to happen from the top down in this organization.  If a Major General can 2b people without due process, that sets a horrible precedent.     

[Major Carrales]

I don't know why CAP-USAF trusts CAP so much when there is overwhelming evidence that the leaders of CAP can't follow their own regulations.

Could it be that the CAP is a "Grown Up" organization?  We don't need the USAF to "babysit us."  You must have missed the cadet leadship lesson on intergity? 

Every organziation from the USAF to the Boy Scouts can suffer from any sort of bad issue.  The only true solution is to work from the bottom up, build membership and leadership based on the individual.  This allows that to "float to the top."  The answer does not lie in the USAF or anyone else wasting resources to insure CAP does what CAP is obligated to do already.

As for the "Good Ole Boys Club,"  that may be the case in isolated pockets of CAP, but the the push is for ONE CAP.   Yes, it is an exclusive club...that is, for everyone who is a MEMBER!!! 

[JCJ]

Also remember that there is the MARB.  All membership terminations (as well as suspensions of greater than 60 days and demotions) are eligible for review by the MARB.  The member must first exhaust any other available administrative remedies.

The MARB is composed of Colonels not currently in a command position, and is chaired by the National Legal Officer (or another CAP legal officer if the NLO is a party to the action and can't participate).

The MARB reviews actions to ensure that they are not in material violation of our regulations, not retaliatory and were done with required due process.  They will not substitute their judgment for that of a commander, but they will step in to protect a member from the problems noted above.

All MARB proceedings are published in the CAP Volunteer, including the names of the participants.  That is designed to discourage frivolous complaints, and allow the proceedings to be transparent.

With that said, a 2B action for cause should, in most cases, be the last resort after a good faith effort to correct the problem.

[ZigZag911]

My understanding of MARB review is that it concerns itself mainly with process, and in no way addresses equity....in other words, if it's done according to Hoyle, it sticks.

Furthermore, a panel consisting entirely of former corporate officers (as most full colonels are) does not strike me as being entirely impartial.

When the chain of command lines up against someone -- and it happens from time to time -- there is no recourse.

CAP needs an independent IG, answering to the BOG.

We could also use independent review boards for 2Bs & similar adverse membership actions, with the power to overturn or sustain (but not add to) the action taken....with attention to fairness & justice, as well as procedures.

There should be several boards spread throughout the country.

Their cases for review should be from outside their region(s).

Boards should include 'rank & file' officers, legal officers, former cadet officers,
retired military officers & NCOs....as well as a former corporate officer (perhaps as chair).

[RogueLeader]

Just couple questions-
  Who will pay for the travel, especially out of region?
  Do all the requisite people have the time available?

[ZigZag911]

Ordinarily reviews of this nature are record-based, rather than live & in person.

There may be some communications expenses, if it is decided that one or more interviews are necessary by phone (conference call or similar arrangement).

CAP should cover such costs.

I imagine  suitable individuals could be found to assist with this work; ideally it shouldn't take more than a couple of hours every 2 to 3 months, reading documents and discussing the cases.(again, by CAP funded conference call, if need be)

[JCJ]

My understanding of MARB review is that it concerns itself mainly with process, and in no way addresses equity....in other words, if it's done according to Hoyle, it sticks.

Furthermore, a panel consisting entirely of former corporate officers (as most full colonels are) does not strike me as being entirely impartial.

When the chain of command lines up against someone -- and it happens from time to time -- there is no recourse.

CAP needs an independent IG, answering to the BOG.

We could also use independent review boards for 2Bs & similar adverse membership actions, with the power to overturn or sustain (but not add to) the action taken....with attention to fairness & justice, as well as procedures.

There should be several boards spread throughout the country.

Their cases for review should be from outside their region(s).

Boards should include 'rank & file' officers, legal officers, former cadet officers,
retired military officers & NCOs....as well as a former corporate officer (perhaps as chair).

The MARB does indeed review for process -- compliance with regulations, due process for members and ensuring no retaliation.  They will not ordinarily "second guess" the judgment of a commander, particularly if the judgment of the commander seems reasonable in the context of the situation.  They have, however, overturned or modified actions on several cases in the past, based on the above criteria.

All MARB decisions are published and reported directly to the BOG by NHQ GC.

Having a "board" review matters of a commander's judgment is an entirely different matter.  A wise commander will surround himself with good advisors, but there will also always be controversial decisions.  If there is a commander, then the accountability for a command decision has to rest with that commander.  A good system and a wise commander will seek the counsel of trusted, knowledgable and unbiased advisors, but at the end of the day the command decision has to be made by the commander (within the authority granted to the commander by the regs) and (in my opinion) the commander's judgment cannot be substituted by the judgment of a board -- who will usually not have the same command accountability as the CC.  That's why the CC's desk is so big - room for lots of stopped bucks.

Of course the CC's decision is subject to appeal, but it should be rare for a thoughtful CC's judgment to be overturned - particularly if it is consistent with the facts of the situation.

[ZigZag911]

You are presuming wisdom and a sense of fairness on the part of our corporate officers.

Both observation and experience indicate to me that this is not generally so.

There us an unfortunate tendency in this organization to look out for #1, and for #1's buddies.

It is by no means restricted to the colonels, it runs all the way through our ranks.....perhaps it is simply human nature....whatever the case, it calls for  checks and balances, of a greater degree than the MARB (i.e., 'let's have some of the 'retired' O-6 Club review our decisions').

I am not questioning their integrity, simply their viewpoint -- it is not that of the average member.

[RiverAux]

They were publishing the MARB board results in the old CAP News.  I don't recall seeing them in the Volunteer.  Have they been there?  Have they been published online somewhere instead?  Is publication a requirement?

[SARMedTech]

I wonder if any of the problems that exist in the realm of the 2b occur because of the mixture of corporate mentality with military culture. Just thinking out loud.

[ddelaney103]

I wonder if any of the problems that exist in the realm of the 2b occur because of the mixture of corporate mentality with military culture. Just thinking out loud.

Very few, as far as I can tell.  Most of the 2b things I've worked are things that would get you bounced from a real job, where you also have to listen to what the people above you say.

[Dragoon]

The biggest problem with additional quality controls, be it review boards, inspectors, performance evaluations, or whatever, is finding folks to do the work

Most wings have enough trouble running accident review boards.  Sometimes it takes a month or more to get 3 qualified guys together in a room with the accused.  It's an INCREDIBLE hassle.


Quality control is hard.  After all, you need people with certain expertise who are willing to do things like get together every week to sit on boards, go out and inspect units, write up all the follow-on paperwork, handle appeals, etc. etc.  Heck, even gettting Group Commanders to visit all their squadrons quarterly can be like pulling teeth.

This stuff is not always fun.  And Momma back home may not like you spending 4 nights a week on the road doing CAP business.

I'd say less than half our Wings have fully functional IGs.  Either they've got someone who has the time to drive around and visit all the units, but doesn't really have the IG skill set, or they've got a fully qualified competent guy who can't spare the 20 or so hours a week the job takes.

Many Wings have the same problem with getting a legal officer.  Most lawyers are pretty busy people in their day jobs. 

We all want a CAP that runs like a real for-pay organization. But without the pay thing, it's hard to make that happen. 

We need to be careful not to demand a bureaucracy that we're never going to be able to fully staff and implement.  It not only has to look good on paper - it's got to be something that a volunteer organization can make work.


It's easy to recruit folks for the fun stuff - flying airplanes, working with cadets, etc.  But how many qualified guys can we recruit for reviewing personnel and admin actions?