Re-screening CAP members

[RiverAux]

So, all new CAP senior members have to submit fingerprint cards and get screened before being allowed in the organization, but as far as I know there is no cycle wherein regular senior members are screened again on a regular basis to make sure nothing else nasty has cropped up. 

Of course, there is a 4-year re-screening cycle for CD personnel, but that only accounts for about 4,000 of 33,000 senior members. 

I'm not sure if it is a national practice, but at least in my Wing your driving record gets checked before renewing your CAP drivers license, but thats it. 

So, should there be a regular re-screening process?  How often? 

[IceNine]

My personal opinion is YES we should re-check every 3-5 years.

And if we were smart we would get on the electronic bandwagon.  When I worked at the airport we had electronic fingerprinting, Police Stations, etc.

There is no reason we have to do snail mail fingerprinting we are losing money, time etc.  When you get electronic prints the computer tells you if they aren't good enough quality, and the prints can be sent immediately.  And it has about a 3-5 day turnaround, compared to our current 2 weeks to FOREVER.

The other bonus is, if the security chief at the airport explained it right, is that felony convictions can be automatically sent to any organization with a need to know.

[flyguy06]

So, why would I want a volunteer organization to know if I have a felony convixction? If I had a felony (which I dont) and served my time does that mean I should be denied membership to CAP? I would sue CAP if they did that. People get convicted for eroneous reasons everyday and if they pay their debt they should free to live a normal life and not be judged for the rest of their life for one mistake.

[Stonewall]

So, why would I want a volunteer organization to know if I have a felony convixction? If I had a felony (which I dont) and served my time does that mean I should be denied membership to CAP? I would sue CAP if they did that. People get convicted for eroneous reasons everyday and if they pay their debt they should free to live a normal life and not be judged for the rest of their life for one mistake.

So you're saying a child molestor who served their time should be cleared hot to prey on cadets in CAP?  Hey, they served their time, right?

Quick story here...

In 2002 I transfered squadrons to do the typical re-build thing at the request of the commander at the time.  Upon my arrival, this dude is there acting as DCC.  Not just him, but his wife, daughter and son, all members.  Well, I was told they were members, but wifey and daughter weren't members because they couldn't afford to join.  Financially, they couldn't afford it.  No big deal, I've paid for more than my share of members due to financial difficulties.  Long story short, I pi$$ this guy off because I challenged him on a few things he had done to promote his son and questioned why his daughter was wearing a uniform and participating, but wasn't a member.  Then, why was his wife working on files when she wasn't a member.  I mention this guy by name to a long time National Capital Wing member who turned red when I said his name.  About 15 years before, my buddy, a 30 year Lt Col in CAP, personally snatched his CAP ID card and kicked his butt out of an encampment for "touching" cadets and looking into their barracks.  Not sure the whole story.  Wing King got involved and the guy was kicked out again.  Where were the checks and balances?  Why was this guy allowed to re-join?  He was a mental case and criminal to boot.  Give him a second chance?  I don't think so.

What felony convictions are okay to waiver after time served and which are not?  Is it okay to allow a former drug dealer who served their time to join CAP but not allow someone with a felony weapons conviction?  What is acceptable?  What isn't?

To answer the original question of the thread, yes, we should have at least a 5 year re-check.  DOD Secret clearances aren't re-checked but every 10 years.  You could get a clearance, file bankruptcy, fix it inside 7 years, and get cleared again.  It's all about timing.

DL checks should be done every 2 years, I think.  I was shocked when I had to deny 2 members' their CAP DL due to their driving record.  Just because someone is a church going bible banger who coddles their perfect cadet, doesn't say any swear words, doesn't drink, smoke, or cheat, doesn't mean they don't get convicted of wreckless driving, multiple speeding tickets, among other things.

[Fifinella]

So, why would I want a volunteer organization to know if I have a felony convixction? If I had a felony (which I dont) and served my time does that mean I should be denied membership to CAP? I would sue CAP if they did that. People get convicted for eroneous reasons everyday and if they pay their debt they should free to live a normal life and not be judged for the rest of their life for one mistake.

YES.

CAPR 39-2    16 JUNE 2004
3-2.  Requirements for Membership.
d. Suitability.  Subject to being waived by the Executive Director or National Commander, any one of the following may be the basis for rejection of membership.
1) Conviction of a felony by any court of record whether federal, state or military.
2) A pattern of arrests and/or convictions including but not limited to sex offenses, child abuse, DUIs, dishonesty
and violence.
3) Discharge from the armed services under other than honorable conditions.
4) Falsification of information on the membership application.
5) Previously terminated or non renewed for cause from membership in CAP.
6) Any other unfavorable information brought to the attention of CAP officials at any level.


WHY?

CAPR 39-2    16 JUNE 2004
3-1. General.  Senior membership in CAP is a privilege reserved for those individuals who conscientiously desire to promote the objectives and purposes of CAP and who meet the eligibility requirements outlined in paragraph 3-2.  This privilege may be enjoyed as long as the member observes and complies with the CAP Constitution and Bylaws and other governing directives.

[Eclipse]

So, why would I want a volunteer organization to know if I have a felony conviction? If I had a felony (which I dont) and served my time does that mean I should be denied membership to CAP? I would sue CAP if they did that. People get convicted for erroneous reasons everyday and if they pay their debt they should free to live a normal life and not be judged for the rest of their life for one mistake.

Yes, you should be denied membership to CAP - I have no problem with that.  If you sued, you'd lose.  There is no fundamental right to membership in CAP.  One advantage of our corporate status is that we get to decide who gets to play.  We can't discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or age, but because members have access to privileged information, government property, and corporate funds, we are allowed to "discriminate" on the basis of past criminal behavior.

When you are convicted of a felony, you lose a lot of fundamental rights as a citizen permanently, including in many states the right to vote.

"erroneous convictions"? Please.

Oh, and I would have no issue with regular background checks, but I think the expense will proclude it.

[jb512]

So, why would I want a volunteer organization to know if I have a felony convixction? If I had a felony (which I dont) and served my time does that mean I should be denied membership to CAP?

Most definitely.

I would sue CAP if they did that.

It's already established, and perfectly legal.

People get convicted for eroneous reasons everyday and if they pay their debt they should free to live a normal life and not be judged for the rest of their life for one mistake.

You're talking about two completely different things here.

1.  People do not get convicted for felonies, eroneously, everyday.  A grand jury must first indict you, then there's a trial.  Granted, it's not perfect and mistakes are made, but at an extremely low percentage, especially for all that is needed for a felony conviction.

2.  When you pay your debt it's because you made a wrong decision, not a mistake, and you must be held accountable.  If you decide to commit a felony, then there are lots of things you will never be able to do again for the rest of your life.  It's a pretty easy choice.

[DHollywood]

So, why would I want a volunteer organization to know if I have a felony convixction? If I had a felony (which I dont) and served my time does that mean I should be denied membership to CAP? I would sue CAP if they did that. People get convicted for eroneous reasons everyday and if they pay their debt they should free to live a normal life and not be judged for the rest of their life for one mistake.

IF you found a lawyer stupid/broke enough to actually file such a suit, you would most certainly have that suit dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Assuming arguendo that CAP did in fact deny you membership based on a past felony conviction (which is what your complaint would claim) there is no legal cause of action.  Aside from the CAP Regs, ANY MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION can deny membership to anyone for a past felony conviction.  (As opposed to denying membership for being a particular race, sex, or religion - which are protected classes).

Then after your idiot attorney lost on the 12B6 Motion to Dismiss YOU would be stuck paying CAP's attorney fees and costs.

A Conviction, by its nature, can never be 'eroneous' because it is the end result of our judicial fact finding system. 

Yes people do their time and pay their dues and move on to have a normal life.  They just don't become police officers, or school teachers, or work in close proximity to children in CAP.

Tough [[mess]].  Get over it.

More on topic....  we have to submit a new finerprint card every 5 years to renew our CCW permits here in AZ....   yes I think we should have to do so for CAP periodically.

[O-Rex]

No big deal, CAP members in counterdrug are rescreened every few years.

[SDF_Specialist]

I feel that it would be in CAP's best interest to rescreen every 3-5 years. Like what's been stated, you never know what has surfaced since you first sent your check and application in. I know of a unit who allows another senior to bring a parent once in a great while. The problem is this member's parent was convicted of GSI about 10 or more years ago. This resulted in the parent being kicked out of CAP. The Wing King got involved, and even wrote a policy for this unit stating that this parent isn't allowed back to the unit if cadets are present, which they always are. Do you think this unit listens? That's all CAP needs is to start letting convicted sexual offenders join. That would take away any credibility that we do have. Sorry to say, but they CAP we have as many jokes about it as the Boyscouts (not that I have anything against the BSA). Rescreening for CD isn't enough. Every senior member regardless of status (sponsor, patron, etc.) should be rescreened to protect the organization and its members.

[Skyray]

First of all, screening is costly and CAP could use the money elsewhere.  Second of all, a felony conviction is a big deal except in Florida where you can get one for a bad check.  A REAL felony is a big deal even in Florida. It is inconceivable to me that a member could commit and be convicted of a felony and have it escape the notice of his "leadership."

There were two recent cases that I think are what triggered RiverAux's concern.  On both of those cases, the facts were disclosed to CAP, and presumably the waiver that Judy brought to our attention in 39-2, Paragraph 3-2, was granted.  I have no problem with that.  And just for grins, it is possible to have your civil rights restored after a felony conviction by competent authority, and I am informed by knowledgeable sources that this was done in both these cases.

There is an issue when a member, for some reason or another, such as a sabbatical, is not under the supervision of their leadership.  I belong to at least one organization that requires you to certify that you haven't done anything to void your membership while you were on leave.  CAP could go a step further and re-screen members returning from leave or retirement.

I do wish you cops wouldn't talk in cop acronyms.  I have no clue what GSI is.  Is it anything like DWB?

[SDF_Specialist]

I do wish you cops wouldn't talk in cop acronyms.  I have no clue what GSI is.  Is it anything like DWB?

I'm not a cop sir. I just happen to be familiar with a lot of legal terms due to my Criminal Justice classes. I'd love to be a cop, but there's that vision requirement, PT, ect.

[Skyray]

I do wish you cops wouldn't talk in cop acronyms.  I have no clue what GSI is.  Is it anything like DWB?

I'm not a cop sir. I just happen to be familiar with a lot of legal terms due to my Criminal Justice classes. I'd love to be a cop, but there's that vision requirement, PT, ect.

I still don't know what GSI is.  It is easier to be esoteric than perspicacious.

[Stonewall]

I still don't know what GSI is.

Grime Scene Investigator?   

I don't now either.  Probably something simple, but what, I have no idea.

[Skyray]

I still don't know what GSI is.

Grime Scene Investigator?   

I don't now either.  Probably something simple, but what, I have no idea.

He PMed me. Gross Sexual Imposition.

[SDF_Specialist]

Maybe there should be a list of common crimes that are commonly abbreviated. If that's not acceptable, then we can stop using abbreviations altoghether. Either way, someone is gonna say "whatever....".

[Skyray]

Maybe there should be a list of common crimes that are commonly abbreviated. If that's not acceptable, then we can stop using abbreviations altoghether. Either way, someone is gonna say "whatever....".

Be complimented that I thought what you had to say was important enough that I wanted to really understand it.

[SDF_Specialist]

Maybe there should be a list of common crimes that are commonly abbreviated. If that's not acceptable, then we can stop using abbreviations altoghether. Either way, someone is gonna say "whatever....".

Be complimented that I thought what you had to say was important enough that I wanted to really understand it.

Well thank you sir. I apologize for using abbreviations. I just find it easier to use the abbreviations so anyone who is unfamiliar with legal terms doesn't get lost in a mess of them. And if someone is truely interested, they'll want to know what that abbreviation means if they don't.

[SeattleSarge]

Just a little primer on Fingerprinting and Criminal History Information...

I worked in law enforcement records and identification for ten years and during that time I learned a few facts...

An arrest record is created when a fingerprint card is submitted to a state, and federal (FBI) records unit.  Hopefully the local agency is also keeping a card as well.  This procedure can involve fingerprinting a suspect three times.  Not all agencies and all officers will make the effort to do that.

Thus, not all local and state arrest information (fingerprint cards) are on file with the FBI.

Thus, a check of FBI records alone is NOT a satisfactory criminal history check.  Serious driving violations (reckless, neg, or DUI) are not always fingerprinted either.  These type of violations might impact a potential members suitability. 

A complete criminal history check on an individual involves the following;

1.  Applicant (blue) fingerprint card submissions to local, state, and federal records agencies.  For a total of three blue cards.

2.  A certified copy of the individuals driving record to look for criminal traffic violations and DWI/DUI arrests.

3.  Check the individual through active databases looking for warrants, sex offender registration, and other hits.

The other thing to keep in mind... submitting an applicant (blue) fingerprint card only checks limited criminal history information to that point in time.  Not subsequent arrests.  I would be in favor of recurring re-submission for CAP members.

Also, most LE organizations will only release "conviction data" during records checks.  Meaning if a person was arrested and not convicted, there will be no record.  And... if the person was arrested, convicted and the court or LE agency didn't or forgot to enter the disposition information, there will be no record.

Lastly, those blue cards are not retained by the FBI.  No record is created by their submission.  The cards (names) are simply checked against current records and returned to their originating agency.

Bottom line... There is screening and there is SCREENING.

-SeattleSarge

[davedove]

This is another one of those situations where I would have to ask, "How much of a problem do we have?"  Sure, the potential exists, but how great is it?  You would be asking a lot of good people who have done nothing wrong to go through a lot of effort, not to mention the extra expense that CAP would incur.

Rescreening the entire membership in the hopes of catching the handful you want to catch is like shooting a shotgun at a field in the hopes of hitting the three ducks sitting there.

[SeattleSarge]

True enough...

But I would submit that we really haven't properly screened our members to this point.

PTA volunteers working with my kid's teacher get a more comprehensive background check than CAP members...

-SeattleSarge

[Flying Pig]

I would be for it.  I know of people who have been arrested for felonies and gone off to court an been convicted and nobody ever knew.  I went on a call once where a husband was on felony probation for some type of fraud.   Funny thing was, it was while they were married and she still never knew.  He never did jail time so he was able to keep it from her.  What was better was when I ran his name in their living room and dispatch repeated his name and said "3 years felony probation for ....."

So things can happen in peoples lives that are kept secret.  As far as suing?  Thats not going to happen.  There are literally hundreds of organizations that have a felony as a disqualifier.  Its a precedent that has been set by the court  Yo cant have a pilots license or even an EMT license with a felony and thats been tried several times and the court won't even hear the case.  In Ca. there are several misdemeanors that are disqualifiers as well for organizations.  There are MANY sex crimes that are misdemeanor also.  

"People get convicted for eroneous reasons everyday and if they pay their debt they should free to live a normal life and not be judged for the rest of their life for one mistake".  

So now as CAP we are acting as a Court of Appeals?  How are we going to know if someone was wrongly accused?  Do we take their word for it?  Sure, people do pay their debt and move on, however, its not up to us to provide people with the second chance they are looking for.  Not to mentioon that we would lose all credibility with any law enforcement agency we would ever work with.  What about in my case?  As a law enforcement officer per my Dept regulations, I am prohibited from associating with known felons.    So now I have to move squadrons so a convicted felon can have a second chance?  I dont think so.  Im tired of people trying to bend over backwards to help people who have made serious mistakes at the cost of us who have lived making good decisions.  Lets not make CAP a rehab.

[BillB]

By the same token, if arrested for a felony and found not guilty, in Florida the record only shows the felony arrest, years after the event. I know one case where a man was arrested on a felony charge, found not guilty and the police officer was charged with perjury. Yet to this day the arrest record still exists without indicating the not guilty verdict.

[jb512]

Maybe there should be a list of common crimes that are commonly abbreviated. If that's not acceptable, then we can stop using abbreviations altoghether. Either way, someone is gonna say "whatever....".

You're trying to make captalk NIMS compliant?   

[arajca]

On a state level (at least in some states) your record can be flagged, as with CO EMT's, so any future felony convictions results in automatic notification to the appropriate agency. I don't know if something like this exists on the federal level.

[Flying Pig]

By the same token, if arrested for a felony and found not guilty, in Florida the record only shows the felony arrest, years after the event. I know one case where a man was arrested on a felony charge, found not guilty and the police officer was charged with perjury. Yet to this day the arrest record still exists without indicating the not guilty verdict.

Ive heard of that also.   In Ca. your CII (Central Index Involvement) will always show you were arrested, because you were.  You cant get that off.  But no conviction will show.  But Im sure most cases you would be required to explain the circumstances and show documentation. 


There have also been cases where people have been listed as "Suspects" in cases, where there may have not been anything to substantiate them being listed as a suspect.  One of our Internal Affairs Sgts wrote a report for a guy once who was listed as a suspect by mistake, basically citing that someone checked the wrong box.  Its like your credit score.....good luck getting it fixed.  But at any rate, thats where a good explanation and documentation from the court should be able to clear up any concerns.

[jb512]

I can only speak for Texas, but I know that a simple TCIC/NCIC check (not important to know what it stands for) just from a name and date of birth, or social, will show every crime that the person has been charged with (above class C misdemeanors).  It will also show if the person was convicted and what the penalty was.

[mikeylikey]

By the same token, if arrested for a felony and found not guilty, in Florida the record only shows the felony arrest, years after the event. I know one case where a man was arrested on a felony charge, found not guilty and the police officer was charged with perjury. Yet to this day the arrest record still exists without indicating the not guilty verdict.

You can see how quickly a person can be charged with crimes, and have that charge follow them for the rest of their life.  It takes thousands of dollars and years to get an expungement in most states.  The state that brought charges and so quickly pronounced guilt should take 10 minutes and clear a persons name when found not guilty or when charges are dropped because it is discovered the police were corrupt, or the person bringing charges was a liar. 

I don't trust our justice system in the very least.  However, it is the only one that gives an appearance of fair and just.  Look, if you are rich, famous.....you spend 82 minutes in jail, for a crime that a normal person would spend years!  When we "kill all the lawyers" we should also kill all the celebrities while we are at it.  In fact, California is SO not like the rest of this country.  I think they will "split" within 30 years from the rest of us.

[Skyray]

As a law enforcement officer per my Dept regulations, I am prohibited from associating with known felons.

In contemplation of what Bill Breeze and I said previously, does that include people who were only arrested for a felony, or who have had their civil rights restored after a conviction?

Maybe we should just stop accepting people with two hats--especially if they get confused which one they are wearing.

[Flying Pig]

Only convicted.  If you werent convicted, your not a felon. 

As far as trusting the justicve system, having been a cop 10 years, Id say it works pretty well.  I had an instructor at the academy tell us "Its not the best system in the world, but nobody has thought of a better one."

[jb512]

Only convicted.  If you werent convicted, your not a felon. 

As far as trusting the justicve system, having been a cop 10 years, Id say it works pretty well.  I had an instructor at the academy tell us "Its not the best system in the world, but nobody has thought of a better one."

I also have been doing this 10 years and I'd have to agree.  People who are distrustful, or claim "eroneous convictions" haven't had much actual experience with the system.  99% of cops are honest, 99% of the guys they arrest are guilty, and 9% of them actually get the punishment they deserve. 

Every person who I've seen in a defendant's chair will swear up and down that they're innocent, but I've never seen one who actually was.

[Skyray]

Only convicted.  If you weren't convicted, you're not a felon. 

Which brings me to a question.  This is not a sophistic semantic exercise, either.  Is someone who is convicted of a felony and then pardoned or had his civil rights restored still a felon?  And how about Nixon, who was clearly guilty, but who was pardoned before he could be tried?

As far as trusting the justice system, having been a cop 10 years, Id say it works pretty well.  I had an instructor at the academy tell us "Its not the best system in the world, but nobody has thought of a better one."

I too trust the justice system.  The only time I have seen it fail is when some player gets the idea that he knows the truth and it is so apparent that he is entitled to lie to get the proper result.  Happens a lot more than you realize.  As they used to say in Dallas, "Anybody can convict the guilty; it takes a real/ prosecutor to convict the innocent."

[Cecil DP]

A few years ago,(1999-2000) the NEC was supposed to have enacted a policy which called for requiring a new Fingerprint check every 5 years. I don't know why this hasn't be accomplished yet,
In cases where there is a hit on a fingerprint check, National contacts the member, NOT THE UNIT, for an explanation. If they don't respond, they are denied membership. If it didn't involve moral turpitude or violence they may be allowed to join upon Nationals review of the facts as presented by the individual. If it was something miner(Joyriding, marijuana, or just teenage stupidity) they may be waived.

[Major Lord]

Using the NCIC system to run backgrounds on members would make the person running the background a felon... not a prudent idea! Other than NCIC, there is no complete central database to use for background checks that would show arrests AND convictions (Okay, I know EPIC, etc, but we won't talk about that here) As a private corporation, we can't conduct background checks any deeper that any other private company. Convictions are available for every municipality, they are public records,  but you have to know every county the person may have committed a crime in....and there are lots of them!

The ideal data base for us I think would be the "Instant Firearms Background". It will tell you if a person has been DQ'd from owning a firearm, (without telling you why) and that would be a pretty [darn] good reason to exclude a person from CAP. These include felons, drug addicts, certifiably insane, communists ( well, maybe we can't keep the commies out of CAP) illegal aliens, etc. It won't show Bankrupticies , liens and Judgements, which are also very good things to know before letting someone have access to our little badgers and Sq bank accounts. It would pretty much take an act of Congress to let us use that data for our purposes.

Major Lord

[DHollywood]

Only convicted.  If you weren't convicted, you're not a felon. 

Which brings me to a question.  This is not a sophistic semantic exercise, either.  Is someone who is convicted of a felony and then pardoned or had his civil rights restored still a felon?  And how about Nixon, who was clearly guilty, but who was pardoned before he could be tried?

As far as trusting the justice system, having been a cop 10 years, Id say it works pretty well.  I had an instructor at the academy tell us "Its not the best system in the world, but nobody has thought of a better one."

I too trust the justice system.  The only time I have seen it fail is when some player gets the idea that he knows the truth and it is so apparent that he is entitled to lie to get the proper result.  Happens a lot more than you realize.  As they used to say in Dallas, "Anybody can convict the guilty; it takes a real/ prosecutor to convict the innocent."

A full pardon, in most states, means that the conviction never happened.  Often the official court records are purged or sealed.  Other states however, while granting the legal effect of the conviction never having been, retain the records and the existance of the charges.

The two defining questions in practice are:

1) Have you ever been convicted of any felony?  or

2) Have you ever been charged with a felony, regardless of disposition?

The former question is likely to be seen on a typical job application and can lawfully be answered "NO" by one who recieves a full pardon in most states.  That person can in fact even gain a concealed carry permit for a handgun.

The latter question is most likely to be seen on a law enforcement application, State Bar Association application, etc, where the law allows them to consider all past conduct regardless of disposition.  One who recieves a pardon must still disclose the facts of the pardoned charges to such an entity or risk perjury, discharge, etc.

I know of more than a couple very productive and dedicated members of CAP who have recieved such pardons.  They have truly paid their debt and continue to do so as productive members of society.

I know of one attorney in California who was convicted of a felony.  He is a top district attorney and prosecutes criminals with skill and passion. 

I would consider a pardon the benchmark of true societal forgiveness and redemption.  That person having recieved the pardon is no longer a felon under any form of lawful disability and should be considered as among his peers to be the same.

IMHAO

[RiverAux]

To some extent we are operating in a little bit of an information blackhole about this issue.  Does anyone know exactly (based on a publically-available document) how CAP conducts its background checks?  Are the details laid out anywhere?  I know they aren't for CD, but what about the general membership check?

[Skyray]

To some extent we are operating in a little bit of an information blackhole about this issue.  Does anyone know exactly (based on a publically-available document) how CAP conducts its background checks?  Are the details laid out anywhere?  I know they aren't for CD, but what about the general membership check?

While I agree that accessing NCIC records for private purposes is a felony, I was under the impression that the FBI (or other suitable agency) would do it for a legitimate organization with a permission slip, and that was what CAP used with the fingerprint cards.  Don't I recall signing a permisson slip when I gave them my fingerprints?

[Hawk200]

To some extent we are operating in a little bit of an information blackhole about this issue.  Does anyone know exactly (based on a publically-available document) how CAP conducts its background checks?  Are the details laid out anywhere?  I know they aren't for CD, but what about the general membership check?

The prints are sent to the FBI. The FBI reports on anything they have. It's up to CAP and the Air Force as to what they want to allow. CAP doesn't actually conduct it's own investigations, they just get results back from the FBI.

[RiverAux]

And your information is based on what?  It squares with what I've "heard" but I'd like to be able to confirm that this is how they do it. 

[Hawk200]

And your information is based on what?  It squares with what I've "heard" but I'd like to be able to confirm that this is how they do it. 

As to where I "heard" it, I got that from National Personnel, ended up talking to Susie. Had an individual that wanted to know specifically how investigations were conducted. I called National, asked, and then provided their number to the person.

I don't think he liked what he heard, as he never showed up again. Which I'm kind of glad of. There were a few alarm bells, and I really didn't want to have to go through any hassles. The guy wierded me out, and I'm glad I could send him to someone else.

Besides, do you know how much it would cost to actually conduct a background check? Second, there's no one in CAP with the authority to request some records. Third, it's a standard fingerprint card you fill out. This is a case of the simplest explanation.

[RiverAux]

Good enough for me.

Of course, if the AF thought it important enough for their purposes, they could take over that part of the program and do as much as an investigation as they wanted. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

It is NOT unusual to see a felony arrest record with no conviction.  In some cases the person was found not guilty, and in other cases the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor.

Some of those cases might have impact on CAP.  I arrested a guy once with several bags of "Uppers" selling them at a rock concert.  (In a previous life, I was a vice detective, but I didn't like it.)  I charged him with possession for sale, but when the lab report came back, the pills all contained "Caffeine--not a controled substance."  He was ripping off the dopers at the concert.  We amended the charge to "Possession of Counterfeit Controlled Substances" he pled to the misdemeanor, and we all went on with our lives.

But I don't think he should be in CAP.

[Major Lord]

FYI, a good, basic employment pre-screening costs about 100.00. This includes contact with all the applicants schools, stated employers, and courts in jurisdictions that the applicants Social Security records show residence for, plus public records, bankruptcies, liens and judgements, and a credit persona report. It would not be terribly feasible to run a background check that costs more than your membership fees.

I doubt that CAP has access to running DOJ backgrounds. My guess-underline guess- is that they use the lowest cost contractor they can find that will perform a "data dump" background check. These can be run for about 8.00 dollars at the wholesale level. Public records show only convictions, not arrests.

Major Lord

(CA Private Investigator)

[Flying Pig]

By CaptLord
Using the NCIC system to run backgrounds on members would make the person running the background a felon..

Actually its only a misdemeanor.....so hey, whats a few misdemeanors among friends and a little informal probation for the good of the organization!

[Major Lord]

You are probably right that a LE officer running an NCIC for a "bad" reason ( like running Angie Dickinson) would be a misdemeanor in CA. In my hypothetical, I assumed that a) CAP would use a contractor to do the backgrounds who would charge money for this service, b) that the contractor would provide NCIC information knowing and willfully. This would violate 18 USC, 1030 (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) and 17 USC (Fair credit reporting act) and various Federal and State criminal conspiracy statutes. I could be wrong, but I think that is what they charged those cops selling NCIC's to Anthony Pellicano, the LA PI, with. There is a DEA agent who is a federal fugitive over just such issues.

Major Lord

[Skyray]

By CaptLord
Using the NCIC system to run backgrounds on members would make the person running the background a felon..

Actually its only a misdemeanor.....so hey, whats a few misdemeanors among friends and a little informal probation for the good of the organization!

Unfortunately, even though I am sure Steht was joking, this attitude of "I am above the law" is much too prevalent among Law Enforcement Officers.  Years ago I was a member of a Kiwanis Club who had a local Police Officer run NCIC checks on prospective members.  When I protested that it was illegal, I was told to "loosen up."  Somebody in Pineda's office ran my NCIC in 1996 at the height of our disagreement over his actions in Florida Wing.  How do I know this? Well, for one thing, one of his staff members disclosed the contents to another CAP member from a different group.  As someone said earlier, 99% of police officers are good law abiding citizens; but the one percent does a lot of damage.

[Major Lord]

I think Lt Steht was only correcting me on a point of California Law, not advocating violating our civil rights ( that would be bad, right?) One sure way to get fired these days is to run an NCIC or DMV for a friend, club, etc. and god help you if you do it for profit! If someone ran an NCIC on you in Florida, you could ask the FL DOJ to conduct an audit...in fact, it would not be a terrible idea to request an audit including any running of CAP members names who have been "purged"....Hmmmm.....


Major Lord

[dougsnow]

He was ripping off the dopers at the concert. 

There's a problem with that?

If you're a dopehead, sucks to be you

[Skyray]

The rules are different over here in Florida.  The proper agency is Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and not only do they not care, but they adhere strictly to the Blue Code.  I better shut up before Delaney accuses me of having Tourettes again.

[jb512]

By CaptLord
Using the NCIC system to run backgrounds on members would make the person running the background a felon..

Actually its only a misdemeanor.....so hey, whats a few misdemeanors among friends and a little informal probation for the good of the organization!

Unfortunately, even though I am sure Steht was joking, this attitude of "I am above the law" is much too prevalent among Law Enforcement Officers.

You have some form of cite to back that up or is that just your personal opinion?

Years ago I was a member of a Kiwanis Club who had a local Police Officer run NCIC checks on prospective members.  When I protested that it was illegal, I was told to "loosen up."  Somebody in Pineda's office ran my NCIC in 1996 at the height of our disagreement over his actions in Florida Wing.  How do I know this? Well, for one thing, one of his staff members disclosed the contents to another CAP member from a different group.  As someone said earlier, 99% of police officers are good law abiding citizens; but the one percent does a lot of damage.

Ahh, well that sounds a little closer to being accurate.  I wouldn't classify roughly 1% as "much too prevalent".

[Skyray]

Ahh, well that sounds a little closer to being accurate.  I wouldn't classify roughly 1% as "much too prevalent".

Express that opinion at 2 AM when you meet that one percent on a deserted road and he is determined to bash in your head because he has adjudicated you slime.

Have you noticed the rise in incidence of proved police brutality since the video camera became ubiquitous?  These things happened before, the poor victim just didn't have proof.

[Eclipse]

Have you noticed the rise in incidence of proved police brutality since the video camera became ubiquitous? 

No.

[jb512]

Ahh, well that sounds a little closer to being accurate.  I wouldn't classify roughly 1% as "much too prevalent".

Express that opinion at 2 AM when you meet that one percent on a deserted road and he is determined to bash in your head because he has adjudicated you slime.

Had some bad experiences, or are you just playing make-believe?  Don't mistake a legal, and deserved a$$-kicking for police brutality.  Sometimes cops have to put their hands on people.

Have you noticed the rise in incidence of proved police brutality since the video camera became ubiquitous?  These things happened before, the poor victim just didn't have proof.

No I have not.  What I have seen a rise in is convictions, proof of verbal and physical assaults on police, murders of police officers, fewer sustained internal affairs complaints, and a rise in filing charges against complainants who falsely accuse officers of wrongdoing. 

I'm not quite sure if you're misinformed or somehow biased, but your information is incorrect.

[davedove]

Have you noticed the rise in incidence of proved police brutality since the video camera became ubiquitous?  These things happened before, the poor victim just didn't have proof.

No I have not.  What I have seen a rise in is convictions, proof of verbal and physical assaults on police, murders of police officers, fewer sustained internal affairs complaints, and a rise in filing charges against complainants who falsely accuse officers of wrongdoing. 

Exactly, that's one reason the police have the cameras in the cars now.  For some reason, folks are more inclined to believe the criminals (alleged) than they are the officers, so the police needed another source of evidence.

Sure, there are a few bad officers out there, but more often the cameras show just what cretins the officers deal with on a daily basis.

[Skyray]

Had some bad experiences, or are you just playing make-believe?  Don't mistake a legal, and deserved a$$-kicking for police brutality.  Sometimes cops have to put their hands on people.

Had one bad experience when I was driving too slowly through a bad neighborhood and was stopped by a cop who thought I was driving slowly because I was drunk, was pissed when he found out I wasn't, and was about to bash me with his baton when his supervisor drove up.  I had the pleasure of seeing him fired for dealing cocaine on duty about three weeks later.  And yes, there were racial overtones to the encounter.

[floridacyclist]

Don't tase me bro!

Sounds like a well-behaved college kid begging the cops to take it easy on him after someone thought he asked too many questions...even the headline stated "College student tased for refusing to stop asking questions at political rally".

What they didn't show was the kid pushing to the front of the line and taking the mic away from the person who was on it...and then resisting hte cops as they tried to drag him off the stage. I'm quite sure that the IA investigation will show that it was a justified tasing....but the press has already had their say on it and to many, this will just be another incident of police brutality.

Of course, the day after that, they did post a video clip of a cop taunting a college kid and calling him little boy while daring him to give him an excuse to teach him about humility and respect. That cop has been suspended pending an investigation, something you don't normally see unless they think there's a reason to. Just like any slice of population, there are good cops and bad ones...thankfully the vast majority are good.

[Skyray]

We have wandered far off topic here.  Seems like all the cops on the board want to re screen, and a precious few of us think that re screen is too expensive and proper supervision would suffice.  Nothing is 100%.  But the rules dealing with CPPT should keep the incidents of perverts and cadets to a minimum, and my opinion is that a periodic re screen is subject to the law of diminishing returns.

[jb512]

Had some bad experiences, or are you just playing make-believe?  Don't mistake a legal, and deserved a$$-kicking for police brutality.  Sometimes cops have to put their hands on people.

Had one bad experience when I was driving too slowly through a bad neighborhood and was stopped by a cop who thought I was driving slowly because I was drunk, was pissed when he found out I wasn't, and was about to bash me with his baton when his supervisor drove up.  I had the pleasure of seeing him fired for dealing cocaine on duty about three weeks later.  And yes, there were racial overtones to the encounter.

So one bad experience that doesn't make much sense anyway, but I'm sure that's how you saw it.  I'll stop now while we're still behaving.

As you said, we're off topic, so let's move on.

I'm not for re-screening as much as I am about following the CPPT to police ourselves.

[floridacyclist]

I see no problem with a periodic re-screen....I think it's $25.00 for CSMs, so just tell the member to cough up $25.00 every 5 years or so. After everything else that we spend on CAP, that would be pretty negligible.

[jb512]

Don't tase me bro!

Sounds like a well-behaved college kid begging the cops to take it easy on him after someone thought he asked too many questions...even the headline stated "College student tased for refusing to stop asking questions at political rally".

What they didn't show was the kid pushing to the front of the line and taking the mic away from the person who was on it...and then resisting hte cops as they tried to drag him off the stage. I'm quite sure that the IA investigation will show that it was a justified tasing....but the press has already had their say on it and to many, this will just be another incident of police brutality.

Of course, the day after that, they did post a video clip of a cop taunting a college kid and calling him little boy while daring him to give him an excuse to teach him about humility and respect. That cop has been suspended pending an investigation, something you don't normally see unless they think there's a reason to. Just like any slice of population, there are good cops and bad ones...thankfully the vast majority are good.

Ehh, there are quite a few kids out there who need those lessons.   

But yes, headlines like those and rating grabbing editing of video clips are what contribute to uninformed people's view on police brutality.  The real cases of it are rare, and what some people perceive as brutality is actually a legal use of force that a person has brought on themselves.  Not everyone will understand that though.

[floridacyclist]

That last one even had me shaking my head..the kid sounded very polite all the way through it and the cop just sounded like he was having a very bad day. Of course, you may see one video like this, but you don't see videos of the hundreds of professional stops being made every day because quite frankly there's no story to tell there.

[Major Lord]

When I went through the LE Airtaser Instructor course, they pretty much proved to us that you should use the TASER before laying hands on the suspect in the hierarchy of force. The suspect and the officer are far less likely to be injured in the scuffle. There is little argument that the TASER has a tremendous deterrent effect, thanks to those well-televised images of screaming civilians. Personally, I would rather take the TASER shot than a full face shot of pepper spray, or worse yet, a PR-24 blow to my knee or elbow! Actual violence is so foreign to the public, who have been conditioned by TV and movies to think that it is much more sanitary than it really is, that the sight of real, contained and measured applications of force are not within their scope of understanding. In other words, they don't know what the hell they are talking about, but they don't like to see college kids scream like little girls...

Major Lord

[Skyray]

You have to realize that we are coming from different environments.  The sheriff of the county just north of me was just indicted on multiple felony counts; the chief of police of the largest police department in my county is under investigation and will probably be indicted; not too long ago the sheriff of a county a couple of counties north of here was busted for protecting and participating in a major drug smuggling ring; and ten years ago one of the major newpapers published a survey that said by the year 2000 one out of every two adult males in the county would have a felony arrest record.  Maybe I should move back to Texas.

[Flying Pig]

^Dont look now, but your proving the criminal justice system works.

[jb512]

Yes, this is way off topic, but while we're on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zQ0_d-BFM4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JULNrvIFz3Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOJ9_CApGfg

[Skyray]

^Dont look now, but you're proving the criminal justice system works.

I don't exactly get your point, but every one of those felons came up through the ranks of everyday cops.  Maybe police forces should re screen every five years.  And maybe I should try to forget that I am encountering a school for scoundrels when I have routine interaction with Robert Peale's heirs.

[floridacyclist]

The CJ system worked because it caught them and got them out of law enforcement. Perhaps you would prefer for them to be left in?

[Skyray]

The CJ system worked because it caught them and got them out of law enforcement. Perhaps you would prefer for them to be left in?

No, I appreciate that.  It would have worked better if it had caught and eliminated them before they rose to the top. <severely biting tongue to avoid drawing an analogy to CAP>

[jb512]

The CJ system worked because it caught them and got them out of law enforcement. Perhaps you would prefer for them to be left in?

No, I appreciate that.  It would have worked better if it had caught and eliminated them before they rose to the top. <severely biting tongue to avoid drawing an analogy to CAP>

I wish I had your magic 8 ball.  I'd be Superman when it came to predicting who will commit a crime.

[floridacyclist]

Of course, it's kind of hard to bust someone BEFORE they commit the crime...and unfortunately LE is one of those career fields that can be very corrupting to those who did not have a strong ethical code before joining up. Most of the crimes committed by cops would not have been committed if they had chosen a different job.

That said, most crimes committed by cops are going to be very newsworthy, their supervisor will find out (like maybe when they don't show back up for work) and they will lose their certification. In CAP, the person will just kind of fade away for a little while and as long as they don't let their membership run out for too long, they might get completely away with it.

[Skyray]

On all of the examples that I  cited, and the one that I didn't cite, there were more than adequate indications that the individuals didn't play by the rules and in fact considered that the rules didn't apply to them.

I forget the context, but there was a poignant quote a while back: " Hasn't been indicted yet is not the standard, Mr. Secretary."

[jb512]

On all of the examples that I  cited, and the one that I didn't cite, there were more than adequate indications that the individuals didn't play by the rules and in fact considered that the rules didn't apply to them.

I forget the context, but there was a poignant quote a while back: " Hasn't been indicted yet is not the standard, Mr. Secretary."

No one case is exactly like another.  It's hard for us to comment on that without knowing those specific indicators.  If the right ones were there and applied to the right violations of law/policy/case law, etc., then I'd want to know why they weren't acted on too.

[Skyray]

Once again, we are drifting off topic.

I appreciate that you think that a CAP member could cover up an encounter with the law, Gene.  With weekly meetings and a proactive leadership, I don't think it should be that easy.  On the other hand, with the lackadaisical attitude about attendance that many of us have, someone could serve a five year sentence and not be missed as long as they kept paying their dues.

[floridacyclist]

I don't think that even putting them in patron status will help....since as far as I know, coming back in still won't require a background check if they were active before....but I may be wrong. On dialup here and not going to look it up in the dysfunctional Knowledgebase unless I have a need to.

[A.Member]

I see no point in re-screening members on a regular basis unless we're going to have a more robust background check to begin with (an idea I could probably get behind).

[mikeylikey]

 

[Eagle400]

What I don't understand is why Coast Guard Auxiliarists have to go through a PSI and submit a SF-86, while Air Force Auxiliarists only have to submit an FBI background check. 

Why should CAP personnel get a free pass, while Coast Guard Auxiliary personnel are required to submit personal information and pass a security check in order to participate?  In the Coast Guard Auxiliary, you must possess a high security clearance to participate in the air program and directly augment Coast Guard personnel.  In CAP, no security clearance is required to participate in flying activities or to work with military personnel.

Doesn't seem right to me.     

[mikeylikey]

What I don't understand is why Coast Guard Auxiliarists have to go through a PSI and submit a SF-86, while Air Force Auxiliarists only have to submit an FBI background check. 

Why should CAP personnel get a free pass, while Coast Guard Auxiliary personnel are required to submit personal information and pass a security check in order to participate?  In the Coast Guard Auxiliary, you must possess a high security clearance to participate in the air program and directly augment Coast Guard personnel.  In CAP, no security clearance is required to participate in flying activities or to work with military personnel.

Doesn't seem right to me.     

Coast Guard Auxiliary = REAL MILITARY AUXILIARY with real military missions

CIVIL AIR PATROL = PRETEND MILITARY AUXILIARY, that once was an Auxiliary, that will never be an Auxiliary again, with no real military support missions. 

Counterdrug in CAP is foolish at best.  We could be doing a whole lot more counterdrug wise, than is currently going on.  What do most Wings do?  Fly highbird missions in support of real counter drug National Guard Missions.

Lets get Congress to pass a law making CAP the OFFICIAL Full Time Air Force Auxiliary AGAIN!!!!!!

[bosshawk]

Folks: let me interject in this topic with some real world thoughts.  I am the director of the largest and probably most active Counter Drug Program in CAP.  I struggle daily with the administrative burden of trying to get and keep over 325 people screened for CD missions.  The entry level screening is now taking 12-14 months to be accomplished and rescreenings are taking 5-7 months and those are only averages.  I have one guy with the highest security clearances in the land who applied in July 06 and his screening is nowhere near being finished.  If you would like to see CAP come to a screeching halt, institute those sorts of screenings for all members.  While you are at it, have all cadets be screened through the LE system: you really will see a decline in membership.

The FBI fingerprint check is just that:  a simple check to see if the person has any record with the FBI and the National Criminal data base.  It will only find those really bad guys and they, typically, are not going to apply for membership in the CAP.

Think for a minute about your Admin or Personnel Officer having to bird dog Form 83s or some other unborn form for every person in your Squadron.  Then, as has been suggested, have that happen at four or five year periods.  My experience has shown that even the motivated people who apply for CD can't seem to fill out a simple, one page form correctly.  I am probably spending 10 hours a week just trying to keep forms filled out correctly.

It is a great idea, but is likely unworkable.  I spent most of my adult life with security clearances of the highest kind and I know what it takes to keep those things current.  Multiply that times 56,000 members and you have an administrative nightmare of severe proportions.

There has to be a better way.

[JAFO78]

What I don't understand is why Coast Guard Auxiliarists have to go through a PSI and submit a SF-86, while Air Force Auxiliarists only have to submit an FBI background check. 

Why should CAP personnel get a free pass, while Coast Guard Auxiliary personnel are required to submit personal information and pass a security check in order to participate?  In the Coast Guard Auxiliary, you must possess a high security clearance to participate in the air program and directly augment Coast Guard personnel.  In CAP, no security clearance is required to participate in flying activities or to work with military personnel.

Doesn't seem right to me.     

Coast Guard Auxiliary = REAL MILITARY AUXILIARY with real military missions

CIVIL AIR PATROL = PRETEND MILITARY AUXILIARY, that once was an Auxiliary, that will never be an Auxiliary again, with no real military support missions. 

Counterdrug in CAP is foolish at best.  We could be doing a whole lot more counterdrug wise, than is currently going on.  What do most Wings do?  Fly highbird missions in support of real counter drug National Guard Missions.

Lets get Congress to pass a law making CAP the OFFICIAL Full Time Air Force Auxiliary AGAIN!!!!!!

:clap:   :clap:    :clap:

[RiverAux]

#1 slightly mis-stated things.  Most CG Auxies complete more or less the same background check as CAP members.  A relatively small percentage have to go through the same background check as anyone else entering the military.  However, those who pass this check don't automatically get any sort of security clearances.  If they receive a favorable determination and the job they're doing requires a clearance (perhaps working in a CG command center) then the CG can request that a Secret clearance be granted to the Auxie.  I'd say that only a small percentage of Auxies who have to go through the detailed check actually go on to get any sort of clearance.  

[PA Guy]

What I don't understand is why Coast Guard Auxiliarists have to go through a PSI and submit a SF-86, while Air Force Auxiliarists only have to submit an FBI background check. 

Why should CAP personnel get a free pass, while Coast Guard Auxiliary personnel are required to submit personal information and pass a security check in order to participate?  In the Coast Guard Auxiliary, you must possess a high security clearance to participate in the air program and directly augment Coast Guard personnel.  In CAP, no security clearance is required to participate in flying activities or to work with military personnel.

Doesn't seem right to me.     

Because CAP isn't covered by Executive Order 12968. 

Let's be clear on a few points. The CG Aux has 2 levels of PSI. The vast majority of members go through the Operational Support (OS) PSI which is about the same as the CAP requirements.  Aux personnel who augment the CG in some fields such as aviation and interpreters are required to undergo the Direct Operational (DO) PSI. It requires fingerprints and the completion of a SF86 and is quite detailed. Neither grants a security clearance. That is a separate process that must be requested by the CG and is quite rare.

[PA Guy]

Sorry Aux and board members, you type faster than I do.

[Eclipse]

I don't think that even putting them in patron status will help....since as far as I know, coming back in still won't require a background check if they were active before....but I may be wrong. On dialup here and not going to look it up in the dysfunctional Knowledgebase unless I have a need to.

Coming back from Patron status requires a background check - I had to do one earlier in the year - this was per Suzy at NHQ.

They would not release his records or return his status until it was complete.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Folks: let me interject in this topic with some real world thoughts.  I am the director of the largest and probably most active Counter Drug Program in CAP.  I struggle daily with the administrative burden of trying to get and keep over 325 people screened for CD missions.  The entry level screening is now taking 12-14 months to be accomplished and rescreenings are taking 5-7 months and those are only averages.  I have one guy with the highest security clearances in the land who applied in July 06 and his screening is nowhere near being finished.  If you would like to see CAP come to a screeching halt, institute those sorts of screenings for all members.  While you are at it, have all cadets be screened through the LE system: you really will see a decline in membership.

The FBI fingerprint check is just that:  a simple check to see if the person has any record with the FBI and the National Criminal data base.  It will only find those really bad guys and they, typically, are not going to apply for membership in the CAP.

Think for a minute about your Admin or Personnel Officer having to bird dog Form 83s or some other unborn form for every person in your Squadron.  Then, as has been suggested, have that happen at four or five year periods.  My experience has shown that even the motivated people who apply for CD can't seem to fill out a simple, one page form correctly.  I am probably spending 10 hours a week just trying to keep forms filled out correctly.

It is a great idea, but is likely unworkable.  I spent most of my adult life with security clearances of the highest kind and I know what it takes to keep those things current.  Multiply that times 56,000 members and you have an administrative nightmare of severe proportions.

There has to be a better way.

Paul:

I agree with you.  I do not think regular re-screenings will be workable, nor will they be cost-effective.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I think all new members are run through an Interstate Investigative Index check.  The III picks up a hit whenever any person is figerprinted and those fingerprints are sent to the FBI.  Running III checks on suspect on my own cases as a policeman, you can get some serious information.  For example, a suspect is booked on a charge of drug trafficking, but is convicted for something else, that would and should be a red flag against CAP membership.  I have only seen one person in CAP rejected from membership based on the background check, and that was a guy convicted at a court-martial.  He didn't think that military convictions would show up.

[RiverAux]

What I was thinking about was basically resubmitting the application form and fingerprints to the FBI again on a regular basis.  That should not be anything like the initial or re-screening being done by the CD program. 

[Skyray]

If we are doing a Triple Eye and it costs twenty-five a pop, I have no heartburn with doing it every three to five years and charging the member.  As Gene pointed out, it is a mere pittance with the normal expenses of membership.

[davedove]

Granted, $25 isn't that much, but it is one more cost that the members would be asked to shoulder.  Even if it were paid, what is the cost benefit analysis.  It seems to me the funds could be spent on so many other things.

Now, stepping up the initial screening isn't that bad an idea.  But even then, what would that entail?  What would be the additional cost?  And what benefit would we see from it?

[Cecil DP]

Granted, $25 isn't that much, but it is one more cost that the members would be asked to shoulder.  Even if it were paid, what is the cost benefit analysis.  It seems to me the funds could be spent on so many other things.

Now, stepping up the initial screening isn't that bad an idea.  But even then, what would that entail?  What would be the additional cost?  And what benefit would we see from it?

I believe that the screening is cost free to CAP that the FBI was told by congress to provide the service and it is funded by the AF not by CAP

[Hawk200]

I believe that the screening is cost free to CAP that the FBI was told by congress to provide the service and it is funded by the AF not by CAP

That's a new one to me...

[Eclipse]

Granted, $25 isn't that much, but it is one more cost that the members would be asked to shoulder.  Even if it were paid, what is the cost benefit analysis.  It seems to me the funds could be spent on so many other things.

Now, stepping up the initial screening isn't that bad an idea.  But even then, what would that entail?  What would be the additional cost?  And what benefit would we see from it?

I believe that the screening is cost free to CAP that the FBI was told by congress to provide the service and it is funded by the AF not by CAP

Well, it doesn't really matter who pays for them, they aren't free, even if they are only internal soft cost to some Federal agency, and if CAP's requests start to increase geometrically, someone would squawk.

[gistek]

Most states have something in place for screening for people that work in schools. These are available through a person's local representative and may cost $10 or $20.

I have also heard that some CAP Units are requesting senior members voluntarily submit these forms, especially units located in "higher risk" communities.

I believe there is already a method in place for evaluating a member's continuing suitability that permits members to report objectionable behavior of subordinates through the chain of command and also permits skipping a link if the behavior involves someone higher in the direct chain.

Beyond this, perhaps a random re-check might be reasonable with the limit that if you are checked, your name won't go back in for five years.

[RiverAux]

I have also heard that some CAP Units are requesting senior members voluntarily submit these forms, especially units located in "higher risk" communities.

Are you saying that some CAP units are conducting their own background checks outside of the official CAP system?