amendments to cadet contracts

[Nathan]

We can argue till we're blue in the face on weather or not that falls in line with CAP regulations, but it was in fact an agreement that the cadet entered into.

Pshaw, I don't buy that argument. What choice does a cadet have? If they don't sign the contract that they will complete something beyond the call of the established regulations, are they still permitted to promote? Are they even allowed to join the program as a cadet?

Ignoring the unenforceable nature of any contract signed by a minor (or cadet, in most cases), I don't see how any cadet would have a choice if they wish to be in CAP. Without a choice, you can't really justify your position with that argument.

And again, can you please explain how you get from "participate actively" to "completion of extracurricular activities"? Running in a race is participation, but completing it is more than that. By regulation, if a cadet is showing up to their meetings and participating to the extent of the program that 52-16 requires, then you can't really claim that a cadet is failing to participate in the program when you personally require more. They ARE participating in the cadet program. They are not participating in a SAREX, which is not an established part of the program, at least not as far as 52-16 is concerned. I see nowhere that gives a commander the ability to redefine the cadet program according to additional rules they think should exist, but were not included.

Again, I understand that commanders are given quite a bit of flexibility in determining whether a cadet is ready to promote. But that isn't license to assume that you can make absolute requirements that the writers of 52-16 did not see as a necessary component of the program. I imagine the spirit of the clause was to ensure that commanders had the option to hold cadets back for aspects that are hard to define legally, such as maturity issues or antagonistic conduct. When you read it, I don't see how "participating actively" can somehow be interpreted to mean that commanders can add solid requirements where none already exist.

The point is, if a commander thinks there should be an additional requirement for promotion, then they should do what everyone else does when they have a new proposal: they send it up the chain. This IS one of those things that the cadet programs people at NHQ are supposed to discuss. I assume that if they're given the authority to write 52-16, that means THEY have the authority to set program requirements, not the individual commanders.

[lordmonar]

The participate actively.....can be interpreted to include all aspects of CAP not just the Cadet Program.

It is written vaguely, because not all squadrons have the aactivity levels.

Squadron X has 10-12 SAREX a year....where Squadron Y may only have 2.
Squadron X may have a busy week end cadet activity schedule where Squadron Y only does the once a week thing.

Obviously the CC in the OP's squadron wants his cadets to be active in ES, Glider activities and Aircraft handling.

So he said  "everyone needs to do this".

On the whole I don't see a problem with it.

We want our cadets at Nellis Composite Squadron to do the same sort of stuff.
We too have a "participate actively" rule....that means one non-meeting activity since your last promotion.
This can be a SAREX, Color Guard Practice, Community Service Project, AE event, Weapons shooting, O-ride or anything else CAP related.
It forces the cadet to do more then just going to the meetings.....which is clearly what 52-16 wants our program to be.

[tsrup]

What I'm pointing out, is that it isn't the cadet complaining about it, or the cadet taking the appropriate actions to resolve it.

I do not use a promotion contract, but maybe like most things, we are blowing this way out of proportion.

The logical hypothesis is that this promotion contract was simply an outline of what is expected of a cadet to promote that was IAW 52-16.  One of such requirements for "active participation in unit activities".  A simple contract that is IAW 52-16 presented to a cadet when they enter the program would alleviate a lot of issues regarding what is expected of a cadet. 

  If I was to write one, It would include expectations or information a cadet should know like:
    -Uniform wear
    -Cadet Progression requirements
    -Active Participation.   

But as to defining "active participation in unit activities".  It says activities, not "meetings".  If the SAREX was one of such unit activities, the it would not be unreasonable to expect that you have active participation in it.
       
I think defining what Active Participation really is to your cadets goes a long way to encourage their participation, and to set a benchmark of what is expected so the regulation is applied evenly and justly.

Maybe I wouldn't make it a contract per se, but I would type something up to the effect of, "this is the minimum expected of you, if you need any further information consult 52-16". 

[FlyTiger77]

The point is, if a commander thinks there should be an additional requirement for promotion, then they should do what everyone else does when they have a new proposal: they send it up the chain. This IS one of those things that the cadet programs people at NHQ are supposed to discuss. I assume that if they're given the authority to write 52-16, that means THEY have the authority to set program requirements, not the individual commanders.

How do you reconcile this position with a commander's prerogative to add to but not take away from regulations to suit his/her needs? I haven't reviewed CAPR 52-16 to see if its language precludes changes by commanders, but if it doesn't, then does not the commander maintain his/her prerogative with the only requirement being to notify his/her boss?

Disregard, the regulation precludes supplementation and waivers.

[RiverAux]

Hmm, so we're fine with unofficial unit policies adding local rules to cadet promotion procedures, but we can't actually formalize it (and make higher official aware of the policy) by making a OI of it?  That doesn't make much sense. 

[Nathan]

What I'm pointing out, is that it isn't the cadet complaining about it, or the cadet taking the appropriate actions to resolve it.

Come on. You're expecting a cadet, especially ones that are newer and lower-ranking, to know how to file a formal complaint? Or even IF they can? Or, if they know both of the above, that they have the courage to stand up to a senior member commander about it? We have a hard enough time getting cadets to report hazing issues. It's unrealistic to justify a questionable policy simply because a bunch of cadets haven't made any complaints that you've heard yet.

But as to defining "active participation in unit activities".  It says activities, not "meetings".  If the SAREX was one of such unit activities, the it would not be unreasonable to expect that you have active participation in it.

That's somewhat fair, but following that logic, we can justify some pretty outrageous demands. For instance, would cadets be forced to go to squadron movie night showing a film with which they disagree morally? What if the SAREX happens only once a year, and it's on the weekend before finals? Wouldn't a commander be able to call it a unit activity and hold back any cadet who chose to study instead?

That's the problem. That line of thinking grants commanders the ability to make the kinds of policy that is supposed to be limited to the people who write the regulations. Commanders have unlimited authority to have the cadets do pretty much whatever they want, so long as they call it a unit activity. And while there may not be a squadron that requires every cadet to participate in color guard and the colorguard must practice for three hours a day, your logic would ALLOW such a squadron to exist.

If you look at "unit activities" being naturally limited to "cadet unit activities", as in, activities that specifically are dictated by the cadet program, then that problem goes away. No unit would be able to make any unreasonble request of a cadet, and training is standardized for the entire country (which, I imagine, is probably the reason 52-16 exists). There are two ways to interpret it, but one makes far more sense when you take into account that it is written in a regulation that exists to set the criteria for the cadet program. It seems silly for 52-16 to have a clause that could, in theory, make it nearly irrelevant.

I'm still trying to understand how the addition of requirements for the cadet program is handled differently than the addition of requirements for any other publication. If we wanted to add a piece to a uniform, it requires approval through 39-1. If we want to add a specialty track, we have to go through the appropriate channels. And if we want to add a requirement for cadet promotion, we would have to send it up the chain for approval. It seems like to interpret the regulation as giving the unit commanders the power to bypass the chain of command in the implementation of the cadet program is unrealistic.

[tsrup]

Come on. You're expecting a cadet, especially ones that are newer and lower-ranking, to know how to file a formal complaint? Or even IF they can? Or, if they know both of the above, that they have the courage to stand up to a senior member commander about it? We have a hard enough time getting cadets to report hazing issues. It's unrealistic to justify a questionable policy simply because a bunch of cadets haven't made any complaints that you've heard yet.

I was merely pointing out the possibility that maybe the cadet isn't complaining because it isn't a problem.   It would not be unheard of for a Senior Member on this board to make a problem out of nothing, and present it as a gross breach of policy or a poor policy in desperate need of change. 

But as to defining "active participation in unit activities".  It says activities, not "meetings".  If the SAREX was one of such unit activities, the it would not be unreasonable to expect that you have active participation in it.

That's somewhat fair, but following that logic, we can justify some pretty outrageous demands. For instance, would cadets be forced to go to squadron movie night? What if the SAREX happens only once a year, and it's on the weekend before finals? Wouldn't a commander be able to call it a unit activity and hold back any cadet who chose to study instead?

If a Cadet's only opportunity to fulfill his/her outside-of-meeting activity is a once a year SAREX, then that is a problem with the unit, not the fault of the Cadet.  Any reasonable person would also see that a squadron movie night does not fulfill any mission of Civil Air Patrol (depending on content).  As for not being able to attend said once a year activity because of finals, there is leeway in 52-16 for excused absences. 

The examples you provide above are not without merit, but are by no means indicative of a Cadet's failure to do anything, but rather a poorly run program.   

That's the problem. That line of thinking grants commanders the ability to make the kinds of policy that is supposed to be limited to the people who write the regulations. Commanders have unlimited authority to have the cadets do pretty much whatever they want, so long as they call it a unit activity. And while there may not be a squadron that requires every cadet to participate in color guard and the colorguard must practice for three hours a day, your logic would ALLOW such a squadron to exist.

again if the only opportunity for a cadet to participate outside of squadron meetings is color guard, then that is the failure of that unit.

If you look at "unit activities" being naturally limited to "cadet unit activities", as in, activities that specifically are dictated by the cadet program, then that problem goes away. No unit would be able to make any unreasonble request of a cadet, and training is standardized for the entire country (which, I imagine, is probably the reason 52-16 exists). There are two ways to interpret it, but one makes far more sense when you take into account that it is written in a regulation that exists to set the criteria for the cadet program. It seems silly for 52-16 to have a clause that could, in theory, make it nearly irrelevant.

I'm still trying to understand how the addition of requirements for the cadet program is handled differently than the addition of requirements for any other publication. If we wanted to add a piece to a uniform, it requires approval through 39-1. If we want to add a specialty track, we have to go through the appropriate channels. And if we want to add a requirement for cadet promotion, we would have to send it up the chain for approval. It seems like to interpret the regulation as giving the unit commanders the power to bypass the chain of command in the implementation of the cadet program is unrealistic.

I do not suggest that anything be added to CAPR 52-16, merely that it's entirety be enforced in word and in spirit. 

Broadening a cadet's horizons and exposing him/her to everything in Cadet programs falls within that Spirit.

I look at things like Color Guard practice, SAREXs, CLA, NCO academy, Wing Conference, AE weekend, Rocketry, or any of the multitude of cadet activities as Electives.  You are not required to any specific one of them, but you have to do something to fulfill the requirement.

[lordmonar]

Nathan,

One of the reasons whey the reg is written the way it is.....is to allow the commanders the flexibility to make the call of what is "particpates acitively".

We already have a blanket waiver for all school related acitivites.

It is not fair to use the slippery slope argument here.

If a commander is going outside both the letter and the spirit of the regulations we have (or should have) wing and group staffers keeping an eye on such things and reigning him in.

One of my beefs with the Regs Hounds out there is that they get too wound up over "But it's not in the regs!".

The commander wants to encourage his cadets to get out and do things......so he makes them do the GES, Aircraft Handleing and Wing Runner training and go to one SAREX.

Gee.......that means he is making them do all of 6 hours of training and one week end in a six+ month period.

If the one SAREX a year that his squadron/wing holds is on the week end before finals.....I don't really think the commander would have made it a requirment in the first place.

[capchiro]

Gentlemen, it boils down to the fact that you can't add supplements to the Reg's and any additional requirements are doing just that.  No ifs, ands, or buts about it.  This program is based on Reg's so it is administered the same in my squadron as yours.  There is no room for creativity.  All cadets have the same requirements for promotion no matter where their squadron is.  Any deviation from the Reg's should be reported up the chain of command and/or the IG.  As a wise Wing Legal Officer once explained to me, one is not to think Outside of the box when it comes to the Reg's.

[lordmonar]

The point is that it is in the regulation:

e. Activities.
(1) Goal. The goals of the Cadet Program's activities element are for cadets to apply their leadership skills, explore aerospace careers and display their overall enthusiasm for the cadet ethic.
(2) Methods. Each squadron decides what activities it undertakes based on the interests of its leaders and members. All units should strive to be well-rounded and offer activities encompassing all three CAP missions. The cadet staff should help plan and lead unit activities. Cadet activities should be "hands-on," enabling cadets to apply what they have learned in the other four program elements. Activities may be conducted locally, regionally and at the national level (see chapter 4). All activities must emphasize safety (see paragraph 1-4). Units may establish an activities committee to help manage cadet events. In Phases III and IV, cadets serve as mentors and instructors, respectively, helping junior cadets advance in leadership, aerospace education or physical fitness.
(3) Evaluation Instruments. Each activity should have an educational or training goal and at least one objective that is specific and measurable, but there is no standard, formal test instrument for cadet activities. However, commanders should seek feedback from cadets and staff on ways to improve local activities. For major events, activity directors should provide their commander with an "after action report" that discusses the activity's successes and lessons learned. Units should keep these reports on file to aid in planning subsequent activities.

[Nathan]

I was merely pointing out the possibility that maybe the cadet isn't complaining because it isn't a problem.   It would not be unheard of for a Senior Member on this board to make a problem out of nothing, and present it as a gross breach of policy or a poor policy in desperate need of change.

It's a possibility, but not a counter. We can't assume that cadets will let the seniors know when they're doing something wrong. Otherwise, I expect we'd see a lot more senior members with their rank insignias aligned correctly.  Rather, if a cadet finds that they are unable to promote due to an unreasonable demand on their particular situation that is not dictated by regulation, they are more likely to just leave the program without necessarily explaining the problem in such a way that registers a need for change.

If a Cadet's only opportunity to fulfill his/her outside-of-meeting activity is a once a year SAREX, then that is a problem with the unit, not the fault of the Cadet.  Any reasonable person would also see that a squadron movie night does not fulfill any mission of Civil Air Patrol (depending on content).  As for not being able to attend said once a year activity because of finals, there is leeway in 52-16 for excused absences.

I don't think it's really relevant whether it's a "squadron problem" or not. The regulation cited by lordmonar above does not state that any squadron cadet program is COMPELLED to conduct extracurricular activities. Indeed, I would be surprised if every squadron in CAP was actually capable of consistently doing more than one or two outside activities.

But whether it's a squadron problem or not is irrelevant when we're trying to figure out how we should dissect the intent of the regulation. A "problem unit" would, by your argument, STILL be able to justify holding back a cadet for missing the one SAREX available, or for a cadet that cannot dedicate the time to practicing for color guard several hours a night. There is nothing in the regs forcing a unit to conduct multiple activities so that all cadets likely have a chance to participate, but, by your interpretation, the regs do allow a unit to punish a cadet for failing to participate in rare events.

Interpreting the concept of "participating actively in unit activities" as the standards CAPNHQ dictated seems to be a much better way to go. As far as 52-16 is concerned, if a cadet is doing well on tests, undergoing mentoring, attending at least one encampment, succeeding in PT, and so forth, then he/she is considered to be a successful cadet. They did not feel that ES participation was a requirement for progress in the cadet program, so it doesn't make sense to assume that "active participation" can be expanded to include ES. The activities cadets NEED to participate actively in are already defined. Everything else has a "should strive to be" and "may include" in front of it, marking that while it's a good idea to include and endorse these activities, they were not considered to be essential to a cadet's development.

I do not suggest that anything be added to CAPR 52-16, merely that it's entirety be enforced in word and in spirit. 

Broadening a cadet's horizons and exposing him/her to everything in Cadet programs falls within that Spirit.

I look at things like Color Guard practice, SAREXs, CLA, NCO academy, Wing Conference, AE weekend, Rocketry, or any of the multitude of cadet activities as Electives.  You are not required to any specific one of them, but you have to do something to fulfill the requirement.

You mention that a failure to conduct numerous outside activities is a failure of the unit, not the cadet, which is acceptable, but doesn't really help the cadet at said squadron. On the other hand, I would say that if a leader feels that the only way to get cadet participation in programs is to compel participation under threat of stagnation, then that's a failure of the leadership.

If your color guard program, SAREX, NCO academy, rocket weekend, or whatever isn't good enough to get cadets to willingly participate, then the leadership needs to find out WHY. Most cadets love to participate in those types of activities, and if they aren't, then forcing them to participate isn't likely going to make them enjoy the activity any more. Perhaps cadets aren't participating because it's a busy time in school, or a religious holiday. Perhaps the instructor is horribly boring, and cadets don't feel like they get too much out of it. Perhaps the parents don't have the time/motivation to drive them at that time/that far. If you can't find a way to get cadets to attend a SAREX, it's going to be very difficult to convince me, based on my experience in the cadet program, that the cadets wouldn't want to go to another SAREX that is defined to be "awesome."

Whatever the issue, you shouldn't have a hard time getting people to volunteer to attend a well-run, well-staffed SAREX. Forcing them to go in order to promote isn't a solution, it's just an indication that there is a problem and that the leadership hasn't figure out what that problem is.

I'm not bagging on you specifically, but rather pointing out the general flaw in the logic that any other solid requirements should be added to the criteria already in place on a local commander's authority. There are people who have the specific job of deciding what cadets MUST do to progress. They are further up the chain of command than the squadron commander. There is no logic, then, that would allow a regulation written by the cadet programs team to give the local commander authority to do their job for them. A commander has a specific set of jobs to do, and it's not to take on the responsibilities of people who wrote the regulation commanders are obligated to follow.

A leader's job is to inspire people to do things. Cadets are extremely easy to inspire to do EC activities if they feel that those activities are fun and worthwhile. There are very, very few times in CAP where a cadet-related activity survives when it isn't that fun, and in those cases, it's usually made mandatory (like Safety Down Day). Forcing cadets to do things they don't find fun just because you think they're missing out is ignoring the problem, not fixing it.

[capchiro]

Nathan, got to agree with you 100%.  Such a shame though, I was just considering requiring my cadets to have their private pilot's license prior to promotion to Mitchell..  Oh well, another day, another dollar.. Just think, all of my Cadet Officer's walking around with Pilot Wings on.. Wait, they couldn't get past the Check ride for the most part due to age..  Darn, another good idea shot down by the Regulation Nazis.  When you have standing Regulations, think Inside the box, not Outside the box, lest Wing Legal smite the down.. 

[coudano]

The reg ensures that all cadets of a certain rank have met similar minimum requirements, not that they have allattained EQUAL training and evaluation standards.  Discounting squadrons that skip, improperly implement, or flat out ignore minimums of course.

Its impossible.
A unit with a grammar nazi will grade cadet writing hardwr and perhaps even teach them better than a unit with no such expert, same for public speaking, drill, and review boards

A commander will make the leadership expectations discretional judgement ENTIRELY different at one unit than another.

[tsrup]

The point is that it is in the regulation:

e. Activities.
(1) Goal. The goals of the Cadet Program's activities element are for cadets to apply their leadership skills, explore aerospace careers and display their overall enthusiasm for the cadet ethic.
(2) Methods. Each squadron decides what activities it undertakes based on the interests of its leaders and members. All units should strive to be well-rounded and offer activities encompassing all three CAP missions. The cadet staff should help plan and lead unit activities. Cadet activities should be "hands-on," enabling cadets to apply what they have learned in the other four program elements. Activities may be conducted locally, regionally and at the national level (see chapter 4). All activities must emphasize safety (see paragraph 1-4). Units may establish an activities committee to help manage cadet events. In Phases III and IV, cadets serve as mentors and instructors, respectively, helping junior cadets advance in leadership, aerospace education or physical fitness.
(3) Evaluation Instruments. Each activity should have an educational or training goal and at least one objective that is specific and measurable, but there is no standard, formal test instrument for cadet activities. However, commanders should seek feedback from cadets and staff on ways to improve local activities. For major events, activity directors should provide their commander with an "after action report" that discusses the activity's successes and lessons learned. Units should keep these reports on file to aid in planning subsequent activities.

this.

[RiverAux]

"should strive" does not equal a requirement that it be done in CAP regulatory language.

[lordmonar]

"should strive" does not equal a requirement that it be done in CAP regulatory language.

True.

But again.....in this specific instance.....requiring cadets to complete GES, Wing Runner, and Aircraft Handling Training and attending one SAREX withing the first six months (or so) of their members is not all that onerous.

Is it an additional requirement?  Sure is.

On the other hand.....

The commander could just order everyone to do the training and to attend the SAREX....and anyone who does not is disobeying and order and does not deserve to be promoted to C/SrA.

I guess it is all how you look at it.

[NCRblues]

You mean to tell me, we have found ANOTHER gray area in the regs..... my god, i have never head of such a thing...

[RiverAux]

The commander could just order everyone to do the training and to attend the SAREX....and anyone who does not is disobeying and order and does not deserve to be promoted to C/SrA.

Wow, I can't wait to tell the Wing Commander that he can order all those seniors who are militantly only involved in cadet programs and AE that they are now required to also participate in ES in order to get their promotions.  Sure, wings aren't allowed to modify the promotion requirements, but wouldn't this fall under their authority to restrict promotions to those who are performing in an exemplary manner?

It is just ridiculous that any squadron commander thinks that they can just make up their own promotion system.   Yeah, the reg might not be as tightly written as it should, but it is clear to me at least that this is not what NHQ intended either for cadets or for seniors. 

[lordmonar]

If you are not following directions of the commander.....you are not performing in an exemplary manner.......

As far as the regs being clear......I guess it is a matter of interpretation.

If I as the DCC put on activities that enhance the Cadet Program......I expect that my cadets to participate actively.....it that happens to be at an ES activity as well.....it is clearly part of both the regulation and NHQ's intention to get CADETS involved in ES.

This is not to say that you at your squadron can't do things differently.

At my squadron, as I said before....we only require to cadet to attend one non-meeting activity since their last promotion.  This can be ES, Color Guard, O-rides, AE events, Air Shows, Community Service, Weapons Training, even cadet staff meetings.

This is not asking too much and is clearly part of the regulations.  We spend a lot of time coordinating and running these programs for the cadets....so we expect them to take part in some of them.

As far as requiring senior members to attend ES or do other activities outside their comfort zones......well as we all say....promotions are not a right....they are earned.  My squadron is a composit squadron and we have three mission areas we need to take care of.  If someone can't/won't take part in all our missions then they are not fully supporting the squadron operations........and may not be deserving of promotion.

[tsrup]

The commander could just order everyone to do the training and to attend the SAREX....and anyone who does not is disobeying and order and does not deserve to be promoted to C/SrA.

Wow, I can't wait to tell the Wing Commander that he can order all those seniors who are militantly only involved in cadet programs and AE that they are now required to also participate in ES in order to get their promotions.  Sure, wings aren't allowed to modify the promotion requirements, but wouldn't this fall under their authority to restrict promotions to those who are performing in an exemplary manner?

It is just ridiculous that any squadron commander thinks that they can just make up their own promotion system.   Yeah, the reg might not be as tightly written as it should, but it is clear to me at least that this is not what NHQ intended either for cadets or for seniors.

we're talking cadet's here,

apples and oranges.

find a regulation that stipulates that a senior should strive for all three missions and that would not be the case.  However I don't see it.