CAP Talk

Enjoy.

This >will< cause issues for struggling units who are not properly manned, but for the most part simply canonizes best practices
that most good activities and commanders are already following.  There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth about
inconsequential issues, but the core of this is where we need to be.

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/?enhanced_cadet_protection_policy_for_14&show=entry&blogID=1040 (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/?enhanced_cadet_protection_policy_for_14&show=entry&blogID=1040)

Draft Reg:  http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/5216_with_CPP_C95D11A509576.pdf (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/5216_with_CPP_C95D11A509576.pdf)

CPP Executive Summary: http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/Cadet_Protection_Policy_2014_____Su_E3DFC5B41A51D.pdf (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/Cadet_Protection_Policy_2014_____Su_E3DFC5B41A51D.pdf)

CPP White Paper:  http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/CPP_White_Paper_404B325ED0C18.pdf (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/CPP_White_Paper_404B325ED0C18.pdf)

QuoteAn insistence upon increased transparency in leader / cadet interactions, through new rules exp
licitly authorizing
parents to observe CAP activities, and requiring parents to be copied on any electronic communications between
adult leaders and cadets

Seriously?

I sent 2 emails to our cadet commander yesterday.

First was to advise him on what he needs to focus on for his Earhart testing.
Second to have him send down the line the "cadet selfprogress chart" for promotions.

While I agree in principle, can't we go back to:

QuoteParents ultimately are in charge of raising t
heir children.

You want to spy/monitor/look over/etc your kids email? Demand access to it. Otherwise, lets NOT communicate with the cadet, send the emails directly to their parents, and have THEM responsible for passing them on to the cadet.

I have a hard enough time locating an email (not hard, but...got to go into eservices to pull up an email) for cadets that I rarely need to contact, but now the unit and I also need to track down a parent's email to CC them on?

Just get RID of cadet emails, and demand a parent's email.

Most of that process could be automated, in fact if this becomes policy, it's more reason to go with and require that all CAP business
be conducted via a wing.cap.gov email address, where the lists can be maintained as needed.

Part of the issue is that a lot of the violations I've been involved with started or were exacerbated via the "Social" BS, where the nature of the
relationship is blurred and becomes inappropriately fraternal.

Considering how ill-informed a lot of parents are these days about technology and the internet, that's a Sisyphean problem.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 16, 2013, 06:06:22 PM
Most of that process could be automated, in fact if this becomes policy, it's more reason to go with and require that all CAP business
be conducted via a wing.cap.gov email address, where the lists can be maintained as needed.

Part of the issue is that a lot of the violations I've been involved with started or were exacerbated via the "Social" BS, where the nature of the
relationship is blurred and becomes inappropriately fraternal.

Considering how ill-informed a lot of parents are these days about technology and the internet, that's a Sisyphean problem.

Ah, but that gets covered under:

QuoteWhenadult leaders interact with cadets via social media, they will do sowith an account designated for that purpose. Their personal (adult toadult) social media isnot to be shared withcadets.§33

I LIKE IT!

My personal policy became that I would consider if I want to add a cadet on facebook, only AFTER they turn 18.

It made sense to me, as most of those cadets go off to college, and it's a good way to stay in touch.

That said, I also considered a Capt Hatkevich page/account, and this pushes me more into that direction.

I suppose this too is a bit easier on "us":

QuoteWhen adult leaders communicate with cadets electronically, the cadets'parentswill be copied, or the leader'ssupervisor ifthe parent'scontactinformation is not available.If a textbased medium does not allowparents to receive copies, that medium will not be u

Also this:

QuoteAdult leaders will not meet with cadets in
person outside of official CAP
activities wit
hout prior parental notification and approval. If in
person
contact is necessary, a third person must be present and the meeting
must take place in a public space. "The Starbucks Rule"

Every time a possibility of getting together on a weekend to work on cadet business came up, I always said we need to meet in a public place, like Starbucks!

Edit:

QuoteAll   CAP   activities   are   open   to   parental   observation

That may be hard to swing with activities on military installations.

After reading the Executive Summary and White Paper, I hope NHQ has a plan in place to collect parent's email addresses and provide/authorize the web-based calendars that are going to be required.

Quote from: NC Hokie on August 16, 2013, 06:18:03 PM
After reading the Executive Summary and White Paper, I hope NHQ has a plan in place to collect parent's email addresses and provide/authorize the web-based calendars that are going to be required.

There's plenty of calendars out there.

As to the emails, just get them when a cadet joins, and as I've said, I'd almost forgo getting the cadets email, and have it fall on the parents. One, it meets the new CPP. Two, it may actually push them towards taking a more active role.

But if you CAN'T find the parent's email, you just copy your next level supervisor.

Increased supervisory expectations:
I can see where NHQ is going to get a fair amount of push-back on the increased supervisory
requirements and expectations, especially from struggling squadrons where there may only be one or two total
seniors involved at all (charter requirements aside).  In far too many cases, including my wing, this may well
force the cancellation of activities due to the lack of 2 qualified seniors.

I can see this especially being an issue with orientation rides, where in many cases, the Pilot is the only senior
involved, and may well be picking up or meeting the cadets at the airport. 

Section 3-3 d. 3.c "parents"
I see this as being an issue.  As I read it, a commander would be allowed to waive the "2-rule" for an activity
with only one adult leader if a parent volunteers to attend.  Being a "parent" should not exempt anyone from
the background checks and other regulations regarding CAP participation, but this section would seem to
not only allow that, but encourage it, and this will especially be a problem at the smaller, struggling squadrons.
The current requirements that a parent be at least a CSM to participate should remain intact.

One can make the argument that all senior members, by their status as adults and in the spirit of "loco parentis",
have at least "go-no-go" authority over all cadets.  Unfortunately, this, in and of itself, can be problem-some at times
when ill-trained seniors get involved in situations they misinterpret or do not understand, to the detriment of the activity.

But a non-member parent has zero authority in CAP, beyond their own child, and as a commander, I would not be
inclined to involve them at any activity.  The presumption being that these people have no understanding of CAP,
the military, nor even adolescent programs.

I am knowledgeable about a number of activities where patrons and non-member parents have been involved
in supervisory roles and as active participants.  In my opinion, this section will open up the idea that parents
are a viable supervisory resource when a unit is short of active members - likely in some places to become
an expedient norm, and I would strongly encourage the reconsideration this idea, or specify exactly what
a non-member parent's role is allowed to be.

Further to this, as written, there is no indicated requirement that the next echelon approve the 1-member / 1 parent activity,
so at a minimum I would suggest this be overtly indicated.


Transportation:
The verbiage regarding "home-to-work" seems to cloud the issue of transportation a bit.  I think, as written,
someone inclined towards a liberal interpretation could make the argument that POVs are not covered by
the "3 rule" because of home-to-work.  I would suggest making it unambiguous and specifically indicating that both COVs and POVs
are covered by this rule.

We have been struggling in my wing in regards to "home-to-work" vs. when a member is officially signed into a
mission and how that may affect liability for both the members and the organization, so I can assure you
this issue is cloudy enough that a clarification will not hurt.

Also, and this may have already been considered, the "3-rule", and for that matter the "2-rule" will effectively prohibit
a cadet from being part of a standard UDF team which normally consists of only 2 members.  Certainly manageable, but this will likely
be a complaint.

Social Media:
I agree 100% that only CAP-specific accounts should be used for >any< contact in regards to CAP, and
that people should have a "bright line" between their personal accounts and their "professional" (including CAP)
accounts, however this is going to be nearly impossible to enforce, especially for the less technical who are challenged
in these regards to start with.

At a minimum, account separation, along with common sense interaction between cadets and seniors, probably
needs to be regularly reinforced.

Membership Board and Interviews:
100% concur and agree.  This is too long in coming.  Far too many commanders treat membership as a numbers
game and/or are desperate to get "anyone and everyone" on the roster that they can.  They ignore or look the other
way on their common sense concerns, and then are "surprised" later when there are problems.  Again, I think the
places NHQ will get the most push back are the short-handed units where this is considered "additional burden" on the
staff.   Regardless, NHQ should stay the course on this as these types of interviews are good for not only cadet protection
but also for membership in general.  One of the contributing factors to CAP's first-year churn is that many new members have
little understanding as to why they are joining or what the expectations of members will be.  In fact, the very idea of "expectations"
in regards to membership is foreign to even some of our more experienced people.  These interviews will go a long way
to fix that before a person even gets an ID card.

Further to this, the requirement that the board vote, and the vote cannot be command overridden is also a good idea, and
should help eliminate problems where someone is "the commander's friend".  The few cases where there might be a political
issue at the squadron should be managed as exceptions.  Bottom line, if a commander appoints a membership board of people
he trusts, and then strongly disagrees on a candidate, there are likely other issues at this unit that need to be addressed.

Personally, I would like to see this extended to transfers and changes from Patron as well, as my experience has been that,
barring someone who moves to a new area, members looking to transfer are probably bringing baggage with them.  The same
goes for those who are transient in an out of Patron status and the 000 units.

Bottom line, someone who cannot pass by a simple board with direct and simple answers is likely to be a problem for the new
unit.

Looks like IMHO they are clearing up alot of things and putting more clear cut guidance out.  While I agree with allowing parents access to the activity who is going to feed them and billet them?  I haven't finished reading it but it shouldn't be too hard to implement if units are already doing a good chunk of this.

QuoteNegative Behaviors or Boundary Violations
4.
Griping about "CAP politics" to cadets or
disparaging other adults

Oh my. This one is interesting.

Quote from: abdsp51 on August 16, 2013, 06:27:57 PM
Looks like IMHO they are clearing up alot of things and putting more clear cut guidance out.  While I agree with allowing parents access to the activity who is going to feed them and billet them?  I haven't finished reading it but it shouldn't be too hard to implement if units are already doing a good chunk of this.

I don't think we're fostering Helicopter Parents, just letting them have access. It doesn't mean we have them shadowing their kid the whole time at an activity.

Quote from: abdsp51 on August 16, 2013, 06:27:57 PM
Looks like IMHO they are clearing up alot of things and putting more clear cut guidance out.  While I agree with allowing parents access to the activity who is going to feed them and billet them?  I haven't finished reading it but it shouldn't be too hard to implement if units are already doing a good chunk of this.

"Access" isn't the same as participation, and in 99% of the cases, it's a non-issue anyway since if the parents were that interested they'd likely join.

I know of a number of occasions where parents have been literally barred from activities, which isn't right either. I'm not sure where the balance is, but
reasonable people should always be able to find a compromise.  For example, "access" doesn't mean they can camp on a bivouac, sit in the ICP, or have carte blanche
to wander around an encampment or even a unit meeting, but certainly, just like summer camps, etc., they should be able to see what is going on, if they are so inclined.
In cases where the host facility says "no", then it's "no", and they are free to remove their cadet.  Etc., etc.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 16, 2013, 06:21:40 PM
There's plenty of calendars out there.

Sure there are, but what happens when squadron X wants to go to a wing activity that did not get posted to the squadron calendar because the wing and the squadron use different providers?  Who gets stung for not providing timely notification as required by the new rules?  Do we just say "It was posted on another calendar, and you (Mom and Dad) are responsible for checking it?"

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 16, 2013, 06:21:40 PM
As to the emails, just get them when a cadet joins...

Well, yeah, but where are those email addresses aggregated?  Will we have to maintain our own matched lists of cadets and parents, and be hyper-vigilant to make sure that we have current info?

ETA that I just saw where we are to check eServices for those parent email addresses and CC up the chain in cases where eServices has none.

These are good ideas, but they lose their effectiviness if implementation is left to chance when there are ways to use existing technology to make that implementation seamless.

^ Honestly, you're getting wrapped around the axle about a micro that simply needs to get "done" as a course of business.

If the average unit can't contact their members and parents, and make reasonable notification about activities, then the fault lies outside 52-10.

Ignore, I think we agree.

Quote from: NC Hokie on August 16, 2013, 06:34:07 PM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 16, 2013, 06:21:40 PM
There's plenty of calendars out there.

Sure there are, but what happens when squadron X wants to go to a wing activity that did not get posted to the squadron calendar because the wing and the squadron use different providers?  Who gets stung for not providing timely notification as required by the new rules?  Do we just say "It was posted on another calendar, and you (Mom and Dad) are responsible for checking it?"

Post activities pertaining to units on the unit calendar. There's also the permission slips, that can be used as CYA, I'm betting even for day or less activities.

Quote from: NC Hokie on August 16, 2013, 06:34:07 PM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 16, 2013, 06:21:40 PM
As to the emails, just get them when a cadet joins...

Well, yeah, but where are those email addresses aggregated?  Will we have to maintain our own matched lists of cadets and parents, and be hyper-vigilant to make sure that we have current info?

These are good ideas, but they lose their effectiviness if implementation is left to chance when there are ways to use existing technology to make that implementation seamless.

When I log into eServices, and click on the cadet number, I see all of the entered cadet emails. I also see three or four "cadet parent" emails.

It will simply become something we do, or better yet, route CAP email traffic through them.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 16, 2013, 06:36:05 PM
^ Honestly, you're getting wrapped around the axle about a micro that simply needs to get "done" as a course of business.

If the average unit can't contact their members and parents, and make reasonable notification about activities, then the fault lies outside 52-10.

Speaking of CAPR 52-10...

The posted changes are inside of a draft CAPR 52-16...

Does that mean 52-10 will be on the way out?

That was my impression, though it's not an overt change (yet).  Consolidating these things is a good idea.

I like and agree with 99% of the changes.

Some of the items may put a burden on small units or even some of the smaller or rural wings even...but oh well

I don't agree with the parents visitation/observation as currently written.

As a CP guy, that's a hard swallow for me like say at an encampment or ncsa. We are honestly busy enough at those activities and having Mr. Mom walking around (IMHO) is just asking for issues.

Edit: I should have said, having Mr. Mom walking around all day or all activity may cause issues.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 16, 2013, 06:06:22 PM
Most of that process could be automated, in fact if this becomes policy, it's more reason to go with and require that all CAP business
be conducted via a wing.cap.gov email address, where the lists can be maintained as needed.

Actually, our Wing has automated mailing lists that will need to be immediately disabled if this comes into effect, until such time as all parent e-mail addresses are gathered.

That includes unit mailing lists, along with ES Qualification lists (where I can blast an e-mail to every GTM in a group for example).  As written, unless every cadet on that list has a parent e-mail provided (and on that list), we cannot use the list.

And if you do all business through a wing.cap.gov e-mail, then every single parent will need to have an account on the wing.cap.gov site, provisioned in some way, including parents who are not members (even cadet sponsor members), so the regulation pretty much drives a stake through that as an idea.

Quote from: JeffDG on August 16, 2013, 07:33:53 PM
That includes unit mailing lists, along with ES Qualification lists (where I can blast an e-mail to every GTM in a group for example).  As written, unless every cadet on that list has a parent e-mail provided (and on that list), we cannot use the list.

Paragraph 3-5.a. states, "If the cadet's parent has not provided CAP with contact information (see the cadet's eServices record), the adult leader will instead notify his or her own superior."

So, if a parent's email is in eServices, they better get a copy, otherwise a CC to the CC is sufficient CYA.  ;)

I'm slightly shocked that a draft even came out. The last few, since the governance change have been draft-less to the general membership, the very ones that deal with it the most.

As for the insistance that it all be done via wing.cap.gov, that's all fine and dandy.

Then tear down the walls, bust open the fiefdoms, and get rid of the bureaucracy that many wings have in dealing with web sites, email lists, and the like, frustrating the ones that actually have to do things like run units, into just saying screw it and either giving up, or just doing it themselves with another method.

I'll have to read in detail later.  They just updated 52-16 about 2 years ago....another update already?  (how about we get those folks workin' on the mythical 39-1 update?!)

However, if they really want to change things related to cadet protection, they need to start by redefining "cadet".   That sets down a path that most don't want to be on with the program but one that really needs to be travelled.  A "legal" adult over 18 should not be considered a cadet and/or held to the same standard as those of 12-year olds.   Copy a 19-year old's parents on e-mails, really?  Does the Air Force copy parents on e-mails to their 19-year old Airmen?  Do colleges copy parents on their 18-year olds report card?  It's a bigger issue but piling on to an already over regulated organization doesn't not seem to be the right solution.

I think the changes here so far for the better and I know at least here in Az at my unit we have encouraged parents to come and see what we do and join.  And CP officers and leadership needs to keep parents in the loop anyway, thankfully I had already compiled a list of parent emails to let them know about things.

Quote from: NC Hokie on August 16, 2013, 07:40:35 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on August 16, 2013, 07:33:53 PM
That includes unit mailing lists, along with ES Qualification lists (where I can blast an e-mail to every GTM in a group for example).  As written, unless every cadet on that list has a parent e-mail provided (and on that list), we cannot use the list.

Paragraph 3-5.a. states, "If the cadet's parent has not provided CAP with contact information (see the cadet's eServices record), the adult leader will instead notify his or her own superior."

So, if a parent's email is in eServices, they better get a copy, otherwise a CC to the CC is sufficient CYA.  ;)

Perhaps a provision needs to be in place, protecting "Wing wide" blasts. Obviously if someone in ILWG sends something over the "All" list, there's very little chance (any?) for any abuse.

Quote from: NC Hokie on August 16, 2013, 07:40:35 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on August 16, 2013, 07:33:53 PM
That includes unit mailing lists, along with ES Qualification lists (where I can blast an e-mail to every GTM in a group for example).  As written, unless every cadet on that list has a parent e-mail provided (and on that list), we cannot use the list.

Paragraph 3-5.a. states, "If the cadet's parent has not provided CAP with contact information (see the cadet's eServices record), the adult leader will instead notify his or her own superior."

So, if a parent's email is in eServices, they better get a copy, otherwise a CC to the CC is sufficient CYA.  ;)

So...if the Wing Commander fires out a note to all GTMs, then he has to CC the Region Commander.

Quote from: A.Member on August 16, 2013, 07:41:26 PM
I'll have to read in detail later.  They just updated 52-16 about 2 years ago....another update already?  (how about we get those folks workin' on the mythical 39-1 update?!)

However, if they really want to change things related to cadet protection, they need to start by redefining "cadet".   That sets down a path that most don't want to be on with the program but one that really needs to be travelled.  A "legal" adult over 18 should not be considered a cadet and/or held to the same standard as those of 12-year olds.   Copy a 19-year old's parents on e-mails, really?  Does the Air Force copy parents on e-mails to their 19-year old Airmen?  Do colleges copy parents on their 18-year olds report card?  It's a bigger issue but piling on to an already over regulated organization doesn't not seem to be the right solution.

The US has cadets well into their mid-20s. Mustangs I believe can be even older.

We already DO hold them to a different standard. Those over 18 must deal with CPP just as SMs do.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 16, 2013, 07:45:45 PM
Perhaps a provision needs to be in place, protecting "Wing wide" blasts. Obviously if someone in ILWG sends something over the "All" list, there's very little chance (any?) for any abuse.

An argument can be made that an all-hands (minus parents) email CCd to the CC meets the spirit of the requirement.  It doesn't actually notify the parents of anything, but it most definitely falls outside the realm of private communication with cadets.

ETA that it remains to be seen if NHQ would actually entertain such an argument.

Quote from: JeffDG on August 16, 2013, 07:47:41 PM

Quote from: NC Hokie on August 16, 2013, 07:40:35 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on August 16, 2013, 07:33:53 PM
That includes unit mailing lists, along with ES Qualification lists (where I can blast an e-mail to every GTM in a group for example).  As written, unless every cadet on that list has a parent e-mail provided (and on that list), we cannot use the list.

Paragraph 3-5.a. states, "If the cadet's parent has not provided CAP with contact information (see the cadet's eServices record), the adult leader will instead notify his or her own superior."

So, if a parent's email is in eServices, they better get a copy, otherwise a CC to the CC is sufficient CYA.  ;)

So...if the Wing Commander fires out a note to all GTMs, then he has to CC the Region Commander.

And ALL of the applicable cadet parents that have email addresses in eServices. The regulation, as written, only allows the alternative if there's no parent email on file.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 16, 2013, 07:48:06 PM
We already DO hold them to a different standard. Those over 18 must deal with CPP just as SMs do.

Not in the way we interact with them according to our regulations.  The only difference is they must complete CPPT....but they're still cadets.

I think most of us here know why its in place. Honestly, all they would need is a CYA like in person stuff: message one or a dozen cadets? No problem, just make sure another SM is also CCd.

And realize also, cadets will need to be trained in reporting SM contact that is NOT done right.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 16, 2013, 07:57:05 PM
And realize also, cadets will need to be trained in reporting SM contact that is NOT done right.

That is theoretically covered in section 4-7. of the draft regulation.

It will have to, because if a preditor does try solo contact with cadet, no one but those two people would know about it.

I think one big issue that I don't think has been addressed in this thread is that they're actually soliciting direct comments from the membership on this one through an online form.  Prior to this you had to submit comments through the chain of command where they all appeared to have died.  Might happen to this, but at least you're not stuck worrying about some guy in the middle of the chain not bothering to pass your comments up. 

This is clearly a result of the lawsuit brought against the corporation by a current CAP member.  His story is included in the "Membership Action Review Board" report members may access through eServices. 

Frankly, this draft will go nowhere. 

Quote from: Patterson on August 17, 2013, 02:32:55 AM
This is clearly a result of the lawsuit brought against the corporation by a current CAP member.  His story is included in the "Membership Action Review Board" report members may access through eServices. 

Frankly, this draft will go nowhere.

Cite.... And you never know it very well could and it wouldnt be a bad thing.

I only saw one thing regarding cadets in there recently.

Quote from: a2capt on August 16, 2013, 07:41:19 PM
I'm slightly shocked that a draft even came out. The last few, since the governance change have been draft-less to the general membership, the very ones that deal with it the most.

As for the insistance that it all be done via wing.cap.gov, that's all fine and dandy.

Then tear down the walls, bust open the fiefdoms, and get rid of the bureaucracy that many wings have in dealing with web sites, email lists, and the like, frustrating the ones that actually have to do things like run units, into just saying screw it and either giving up, or just doing it themselves with another method.

I don't think that the CP shop has put anything out in the last 8 years or so that hasn't solicited input and put out a draft.  CP seems to like the draft model.

Quote from: Patterson on August 17, 2013, 02:32:55 AM
This is clearly a result of the lawsuit brought against the corporation by a current CAP member.  His story is included in the "Membership Action Review Board" report members may access through eServices. 

Frankly, this draft will go nowhere.

No, it's not, at least not any more then any other common sense policies are the results of bad experiences and common sense.

Go nowhere?  This is in the final stages of adoption.  Other then typos and maybe some adjustments, this'll be part
of 52-16 by the new fiscal year.

Quote from: Patterson on August 17, 2013, 02:32:55 AM
This is clearly a result of the lawsuit brought against the corporation by a current CAP member.  His story is included in the "Membership Action Review Board" report members may access through eServices. 

Frankly, this draft will go nowhere.

You may find it useful to read the draft regulation and supporting materials before tossing around "facts" known only to you.


From the white paper online:

We Need Your Leadership.... Help us dispel kneejerk reactions and misconceptions about an enhanced CPP. For example, we don't want members to assume that the new CPP:
•   is paperwork used only to satisfy the lawyers. It was the cadet community who initiated the new CPP. Lawyers helped, but Cadet Programs Officers took the lead in making the Cadet Program more professional through an enhanced CPP, and therefore create a safer and more effective cadet experience.

Quote from: Patterson on August 17, 2013, 02:32:55 AM
This is clearly a result of the lawsuit brought against the corporation by a current CAP member.  His story is included in the "Membership Action Review Board" report members may access through eServices. 

Frankly, this draft will go nowhere.

Just because I'm curious like that, did go to the MARP link in eServices, wasted the last 20 minutes and found no such lawsuit mentioned.

Perhaps it was an older case (pre-2010) you're thinking of?

In any event, the changes to the CPP are driven by a number of things:

• "acute" CPP incidents (actual documented abuse cases, such as the one down in FL) that occur through a person's involvement with CAP (I think we can all agree that participation in CAP should not serve as an avenue of access for potential predators, right?);
  
• a desire to reduce/eliminate the "acute" incidents and to actually protect our cadets;
• a desire to protect our CP officers from accusations or the appearance of impropriety as it relates to cadets;
• a desire to identify best practices in youth protection from other organizations and follow those (hint: as much as we'd like to think that there is sort of a 'standard' nationwide to protect youth, or that someone else has got to be doing it better than we are, there really isn't a "best-practice" consensus among other youth-serving organizations as to how best to protect youth and CAP is probably actually doing a pretty good job of it previously, but there were areas where we're clearly not doing all we can);
• the realization that while we're keeping people out at the front end who are already potential abusers (through screening), we're only excluding those who have already been caught (the acute cases have all been people with no prior records);

I know some of the parties involved in this, and have had these discussions for a long time.  Sure, there is a desire to protect CAP's image from tarnishing. No kidding. Is this "written by lawyers to protect CAP?" No.

Do you know that CAP initiated a "Cadet Protection Summit" with reps from other organizations and industry experts (and I think the CDC actually presented) to get the ball rolling on this?   It wasn't driven by the lawyers, it was driven by the CP shop and was partly in response to the recently unpleasantness in FL.  (You will note that CAP-USAF personnel are now covered by the CPP rules..)

I started to write this in my other reply, and realized it was sort of a more general, separate reply and not based on the quoted portion of that reply, so I will perform a "Break" and add a more generalized reply, too:

Is the draft CPP perfect?  No.  I think its got a lot of better features than the current CPP, and a few that are a little overboard.

Examples:

Email.
I, too, am a little unhappy about the whole email  thing because I think its cumbersome and unwieldy, but then again, its in response to putting some controls on a "signal path," if you will, that prior abusers have exploited to gain access to cadets. 

The worst thing is, I don't exactly know of a better solution that is available that would "continue to allow legitimate, official communication based on our need to execute our official duties and communicate with our membership while at the same time keep potential abusers from using that for unofficial and illegitimate means."

(see the dichotomy there? Urgh. Time to go back to unit newsletters, and phone messages...<GRIN> You know, the early 1990s!) 

Social Media
Similar to the email thing, I get the need to limit the "signal path" on social media. Unfortunately, this smacks of some rules I've seen elsewhere written by people who don't understand how social media can work and should work. 

Flatly: I am not going to setup a second social media account.  To quote a popular meme : "Ain't nobody got time for that!"

I have cadets who are on my friends list on Facebook (honestly, most of them are not even current cadets anymore).  When I get a "friend request" from a cadet, they go into my "Limited Profile" group and can see essentially only my "public" Facebook profile like anybody else.  By default, ALL of my FB updates (with the exception of some of the app updates like Foursquare, which defaults to "public" and I haven't figured out if you can change that) are hidden from my Limited Profile group.   So while I can see cadet's status updates and such, they can't see mine (unless I make an update public, which I do, occasionally, and it is always VERY benign and in keeping with my "public persona" if you will).

This speaks to "appropriate behavior and decorum" among officers.  Didn't we recently have a very public example of really poor online (Facebook) behavior by a (now former) CAP officer who did not understand the concept of "appropriate behavior and decorum"?  This member's chain of command declined to do anything about said online behavior when it was pointed out. 

Behavior is behavior, folks, whether its on Facebook or in-person. If someone is showing their fourth point of contact on CAP-Talk (hey, look, "social media." Any post made in a cadet-accessible forum should probably be forwarded to their parents, dontchathink?), they're still showing their fourth point of contact.   Correct the behavior.

I use Facebook a lot.  Kind of like I use my house a lot.   My house sits on a public street.  My address is on the squadron roster.  By sheer dint of their membership, cadets have access to that roster, even.  But does that mean I invite them into my house? No.  I invite my adult friends over, we watch TV, drink beer and curse (hush, I didn't really just admit that!).  Do I invite cadets over to my house to watch TV, drink beer & curse?  Well, of course not!

Same thing on FB. I don't invite cadets into the "inner sanctum" because that would be incorrect behavior and not keeping with the decorum I maintain as a CAP officer and as an adult.  Duh!!  Sure they can connect with me via social media, but the get the "public NIN" not the "personal NIN".

I predict that the social media aspect of this is going to cause a lot of angst & confusion initially. And really, whats to inhibit Captain Kidtoucher who creates his "CAP-only Captain Kidtoucher Facebook Account" from using that FB account to communicate via PM to cadets for the purposes of ilicit activity?  Nothing.  Sure, Capt Kidtoucher's CAP-only FB account should be devoid of sexual references, pictures of him out getting hammered with his buddies, etc.  That does not inhibit his ability to use that avenue for ilicit purposes.

If the social media rules as written wind up in effect,  I will just "unfriend" any current cadet (if there are 6 or 8 out of the 600+ people on my FB friends list, I'll be surprised) and drive on. I don't have the time or the energy to setup and maintain a second account.  It will never get used or updated. I have a second account for CadetStuff (to manage our social media stuff) that I never check. Same thing. People friend me up all the time and I don't have the time to deal with that. I don't use it as a "second persona".

I behave online in front of the cadets with essentially the same decorum that I behave in person with the cadets. I'm on a first name basis with all of them: I call them "Cadet" and they call me "Colonel."  I like that first name basis. :)

Speaking of email

I get idle with a copy of Visio and you never know what might happen. :)

Quote from: NINI have cadets who are on my friends list on Facebook (honestly, most of them are not even current cadets anymore).  When I get a "friend request" from a cadet, they go into my "Limited Profile" group and can see essentially only my "public" Facebook profile like anybody else.  By default, ALL of my FB updates (with the exception of some of the app updates like Foursquare, which defaults to "public" and I haven't figured out if you can change that) are hidden from my Limited Profile group.   So while I can see cadet's status updates and such, they can't see mine (unless I make an update public, which I do, occasionally, and it is always VERY benign and in keeping with my "public persona" if you will).

Sounds like a more workable solution. Have sent this idea up using the suggestion box on the draft page?

Quote from: arajca on August 17, 2013, 03:28:41 PM

Quote from: NINI have cadets who are on my friends list on Facebook (honestly, most of them are not even current cadets anymore).  When I get a "friend request" from a cadet, they go into my "Limited Profile" group and can see essentially only my "public" Facebook profile like anybody else.  By default, ALL of my FB updates (with the exception of some of the app updates like Foursquare, which defaults to "public" and I haven't figured out if you can change that) are hidden from my Limited Profile group.   So while I can see cadet's status updates and such, they can't see mine (unless I make an update public, which I do, occasionally, and it is always VERY benign and in keeping with my "public persona" if you will).

Sounds like a more workable solution. Have sent this idea up using the suggestion box on the draft page?

I supplied commentary to this end, yes. Might help if others who feel the same way did so as well.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Behavior online is no different (well, should be no different) than behavior in person.  Whether is Facebook or community/personal connections, you should keep your professional distance as an officer and adult. Period.

Can't tell you the number of times I've heard "But, but, thats on my Facebook. Thats _private_."  No, it ain't private, troop.  I'll give you the fact that you think its only available to your friends on Facebook, but you're a knucklehead if you think that ANYTHING you put on the Internet, even if you think it should be "private," really is private.

I had a cadet say this legitimately to me once, I showed him how the information was visible even to people not logged in to Facebook and who were not his friends.  Its not private if you don't even bother to use the privacy controls.

I said "You might as well have sent these pics to the local newspaper or had them blown up and made into a sign for your front yard, thats how 'private' they are."

The former CG of the USAC also wanted to enact a similar rule. He didn't understand the concept of privacy controls, either.

BTW, lest anybody think I'm hypocritical or something: my "private" Facebook items, the things that my friends NOT in the Limited Profile group can see, are very, very tame, too. 

I have pics of skydiving, work, whatever, in there.  Nothing racy, nothing salacious or inappropriate on my wall or in my pics, I don't think.  That is my "just in case the privacy controls don't work for some stupid reason" backup. Plus, that's just who I am. I don't post racy photos or link to scantily clad women or language filled rants or inappropriate political craptrap.

Again, the maxim applies:  if you don't want something that private to be seen by people it should not be seen by, don't put it on the Internet.


Occasionally, someone might post something inappropriate on my FB wall (which I have to approve/allow anyway because of my privacy controls) and I don't think it is something that my kids or my cadets would deem appropriate or I would feel comfortable with them seeing, it gets deleted. Immediately.

Why? Because I believe in decorum.

Quote from: NIN on August 17, 2013, 11:24:45 AM
This speaks to "appropriate behavior and decorum" among officers.  Didn't we recently have a very public example of really poor online (Facebook) behavior by a (now former) CAP officer who did not understand the concept of "appropriate behavior and decorum"?  This member's chain of command declined to do anything about said online behavior when it was pointed out. 

I don't know anything about the incident you're describing.  However, if that's the case, the officer and anyone in the chain of command that failed to act should be removed from the organization.  Plain and simple. 

If National gets serious about dealing with incidents and doesn't shy away from termination, that would go a long way in setting the tone for a cultural change.  Action (or inaction as it may be) speaks louder than any reg. 

I'm not fully convinced much change/clarification is needed/warranted.   We need to start enforcing what we have rather than trying to run down a path of identifying every possible scenario. 

I can't begin to imagine why any of that "social" narcissistic BS is worth the trouble.

If you don't "friend" people who aren't your friends or peers, you don't have to worry every time ZuckerDuff makes a another
revenue decision about your privacy.

There's is no point whatsoever to this nonsense.

No one cares what you're doing, where you are, or what you had for lunch, but they tolerate your nonsense because they
want you to tolerate theirs.

How millions of people can be this blind, at the expense of turning themselves into a product continues to escape me.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 17, 2013, 05:28:06 PM
How millions of people can be this blind, at the expense of turning themselves into a product continues to escape me.

I'm guessing, and I could be wrong, that similar things were said about cell phones, email, and webpages.

:)

"What, you're so all fired important right now that you need a cellular phone thingy? What, you're a doctor or something?"

Quote from: Eclipse on August 17, 2013, 05:28:06 PM
How millions of people can be this blind, at the expense of turning themselves into a product continues to escape me.

Not for nothing whatsoever, but usually the people who claim there is no need for people to do things like own private planes or expensive Italian cars are the ones who have never flown in a small plane, ridden in a sports car, etc.

Just sayin'.  There's more to Facebook than what you think. 

But since you don't use Facebook, you don't know that.

Not an apt comparison.

A cell phone is a tool.  It does not turn the user into a product to someone else's anonymous benefit and profit.

When you use it, the only people involved are you, the person you called, and the NSA.

There isn't anything else to Facebook except narcissism and marketing.  I am, sadly, all too familiar with this nonsense because of clients.  Just because I don't play doesn't mean I don't have plenty of stick time.  You'll never really see how deep the rabbit hole goes until you've had to fix someone else's profile and pages, especially the non-technical users that Facebook preys on.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 17, 2013, 05:46:28 PM
You'll never really see how deep the rabbit hole goes until you've had to fix someone else's profile and pages, especially the non-technical users that Facebook preys on.

Well, sadly, thats true about a LOT of technologies, not just Facebook.

I see that every day.  Its like handing a 9 year old a Ferrari and wondering why its always wrapped around a telephone pole or stalled in the middle of an intersection.

The more I read the back-and-forth about the social media aspect of the new regs, the more I wonder HOW we're supposed to make sure that there are no violations occurring.  Laying aside the fact that I don't do social media, if I did, I certainly don't have the time or inclination to friend all of the senior members in my squadron in order to monitor their online activities.

Quote from: NIN on August 17, 2013, 05:55:22 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 17, 2013, 05:46:28 PM
You'll never really see how deep the rabbit hole goes until you've had to fix someone else's profile and pages, especially the non-technical users that Facebook preys on.

Well, sadly, thats true about a LOT of technologies, not just Facebook.

I see that every day.  Its like handing a 9 year old a Ferrari and wondering why its always wrapped around a telephone pole or stalled in the middle of an intersection.

I don't disagree, but if you have the money to get your hands on a Ferrari and choose to run it into a wall, so be it.  I have seen nothing from social media but either benign nonsense (cat videos,
fax poop, cleaver sayings and urban legends), marketing bad behavior (i.e. "liking" a company or product, as if that company or product cares about you as a person, profiling,
pushing ads, etc.) and then "badness" - ruined marriages, inappropriate relationships, inappropriate access and familiarly, etc., etc.

If you haven't spoken to someone in 20 years, you don't need a "reunion", they didn't care enough to find you or stay in touch, they aren't your "friend". 

If you want to send Grandma pics of the kids, send them to >HER<, don't light up a public space that uses facial recognition and puts your kids (and mine) at risk.

By far the majority of people using FB started because they were guilted into it by someone else, and even more amusing are the people who "hate so-and-so's posts, but
I don't want to offend her by unfriending or blocking her". 

Artificial drama for people with uninteresting lives.

If I had soap to sell, I'd be dying for "likes", because then I can sell more soap, which, at the end of the day, is all this is - selling soap.

Quote from: NC Hokie on August 17, 2013, 06:00:18 PM
The more I read the back-and-forth about the social media aspect of the new regs, the more I wonder HOW we're supposed to make sure that there are no violations occurring.  Laying aside the fact that I don't do social media, if I did, I certainly don't have the time or inclination to friend all of the senior members in my squadron in order to monitor their online activities.

Like a lot of practically unenforceable regulations, these can be used as "value-adds" when it comes time to discipline or terminate someone.

If members are violating boundaries and having contact outside the regs, CAP might not have anyway to know it at the time, but as soon as it comes to light, you're cooked.

Keep in mind one of the basic tenets of CPP is a lot like uniform inspection: If it looks wrong, it probably is wrong.

If you're not supposed to email cadets without copying parents or the CO (if the parents have no email in the system) then one day at the unit you overhear C/A1C TalksALot mentioning to her friend about the massive email conversation she got into with LT PervyGuy, the squadron safety officer, you don't have to think "Hmm, thats perfectly normal."  You now say "Wait a minute" and investigate further.

"Cadet TalksALot, did you say you've been emailing with the safety officer?"

"Oh, yessir, he asked me how classes are going this semester."

Hear those sirens and klaxons? Yeah, thats a potential boundary violation.  CO ascertains if there is something untoward going on or not, and likely counsels the LT about his boundary violation.   Could have totally been an innocent thing, or maybe not.  Either way, the if the LT was emailing this cadet without a copy to the parents, then yes, its time for a verbal counseling.

If, however, Cadet Talksalot is just a massive exaggerator, the reply might be:

"Yessir, he reminded me that I wasn't safety current and I wanted to ask him how I need to get safety current, and he sent me back a list of options.."

Slightly different kettle of fish.  The CO might say "OK, LT, you need to be sure to copy cadets' parents on these emails about safety currency." and leave it at that, knowing that 22 other cadets in the squadron got similar emails, including parents. Maybe it was a simple case of Cadet Talksalot's parent's email got missed in the process.

However, we've now noted that there is either a legit goof, a potential minor or major flouting of the rules, or an attempt to do inappropriate things (note the continuum of possibilities here).

If two weeks later, the CO gets told by another officer "Cadet TalksALot emailed me about something to do with supply, and I noticed that it was in reply to an email she'd gotten from LT PervyGuy where her parents weren't copied..."  then maybe we've got a pattern of behavior that either falls into the flouting of the rules or an attempt to do inappropriate things.  Either way, its probably not a legit goof at this point.

ETA: My point is, these rules are intended to cause "behaviors that lead to inappropriate situations" to stick out like sore thumbs.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 17, 2013, 06:09:04 PM

Quote from: NC Hokie on August 17, 2013, 06:00:18 PM
The more I read the back-and-forth about the social media aspect of the new regs, the more I wonder HOW we're supposed to make sure that there are no violations occurring.  Laying aside the fact that I don't do social media, if I did, I certainly don't have the time or inclination to friend all of the senior members in my squadron in order to monitor their online activities.

Like a lot of practically unenforceable regulations, these can be used as "value-adds" when it comes time to discipline or terminate someone.

If members are violating boundaries and having contact outside the regs, CAP might not have anyway to know it at the time, but as soon as it comes to light, you're cooked.

Now you seem to be arguing both sides of the coin. 

I actually agree with your earlier comment, technology is just a tool.  Facebook is just one possible avenue.  Instagram is a possible avenue.  What's next?  Who knows?...and it doesn't matter.  Technology is not the issue, behavior is.  In my view the regs already address this...National just needs the kahonas to enforce them.  National's pseudo-approach of "solving issues" by adding more words to regulations does not come across as particularly genuine or effective.

All this does is update it to be more in line with the current standards. This is why they looked at OTHER organizations.

I'm not sure what the issue is, other than some inconvenience from the emailing standpoint.

99% of this is no big deal.  Some of it is a little silly, I think.  But this is CAP, after all.

The communications thing is pretty annoying, but whatevs...   Should parents be *requried to* eavesdrop on phone calls too?  No more txting a simple question or instruction.
I don't *have* 'adult' and 'youth-worker' social media accounts.  Then again I don't post anything in facebook that I wouldn't repeat in front of anyone in public, either.
Where is the line where it's now nonsense?
I've never had a problem including parents who wanted to be in the loop, but quite frankly, most of them won't care, and some of them will actually find getting copied on every routine communication annoying.



I have serious objections to the recording and tracking systems for boundary violations.

While I understand and to some degree sympathize with the need for a method to catch people who are progressing toward abuse, but haven't quite gotten there yet, there are some serious chances to throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

The definition of what is boundary is pretty subjective...  A hyper-sensitive commander (maybe under pressure of a hyper sensitive parent) may report "not much" whereas somewhere else, a senior member may all but sexually assault a cadet with just a verbal warning (or maybe not even that)
There doesn't seem to be any sort of protest or appeal mechanism for a member receiving a boundary vio.
The possibility exists for retributive violations, or false reports, with no apparent recourse.
There doesn't appear to be any sort of "time limit" if you get hit with a vio, it's permanent?
The verbal notifications within 90 days thing is going to have to be tracked somehow, which creates a big brother kind of system,
but we're talking about local commanders here, so it's a REALLY INSECURE one
E-services, and email are *not* in any way shape or form "secure" (which means your suspected pervness may be exposed outside CAP)

Personally, this system presents a 'risk' to me, as an adult youth worker, that i'm not sure i'm willing to assume.
If it goes into effect, I will have to take a very serious look at whether its worth it to expose myself (so to speak) to the possibility of getting labelled as a boundary violating pervdog, which could have very serious consequences on the rest of my life.  Considering that depending on who you ask, my little 'expose myself' joke there is a boundary violation because it's here in view of cadets...  I don't think i'm being too paranoid.

I can introduce you to people who think that *ANY* adult who wants to work with kids is suspect, immediately, because "that's weird", all by  itself.

I (a 20+ year CAP and CP vet) may very well choose to disassociate myself from the cadet program entirely under such a rule regime.  How many other people are going to take a look at the risk and go "ehhhh, no thanks"?

additionally, there is no guarantee, whatsoever ,that "a parent" being used as a supplemental chaperone, isn't a boundary violating perv, themselves...

Just because you are the parent of a cadet doesn't mean you aren't a perv.

Probably not most.

I will assume that the parent email requirement won't be an issue for mass emails?  I sent 2 emails just today on my wing's "general list" which goes to every member in the wing.  It's populated from e-services and doesn't include cadet parents email addresses.  Of course it would be hard to make an accusation of impropriety towards a specific cadet in an email 4,000+ people receive, but it's a technicality that needs to be addressed nonetheless. 

Well, after reading more, I just calmed my own fears about that.  It is my interpretation that the requirement is to copy the parent OR the unit commander.  Thus, a mass email that goes to all members of a wing would obviously include all unit CC's, so the requirement would be met. 

Now there's another issue with social media.  I have a couple senior cadet officers who help me manage my wing's social media accounts.  We are friends on our personal accounts, as we use them to send and view content for the wing's pages and discuss them.  It would be a PITA to have to unfriend them and use other methods.  Besides, a parent should be monitoring their kid's social media anyways. 

I spoke with one of our legal officers today, who the governor appointed to the bench a few years back, and he has serious doubts about social media rules.

Quote from: coudano on August 18, 2013, 03:26:57 AM
additionally, there is no guarantee, whatsoever ,that "a parent" being used as a supplemental chaperone, isn't a boundary violating perv, themselves...

Just because you are the parent of a cadet doesn't mean you aren't a perv.

I agree and said the same above - I don't see how this part can stay without changes.

Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2013, 04:02:08 AM
I spoke with one of our legal officers today, who the governor appointed to the bench a few years back, and he has serious doubts about social media rules.

From a legal perspective?

CAP is an at-will organization and just like any other corporation, the military, etc., they are free to enact any rules they wish.

A full prohibition in regards to using social media might not stand, but rules and policies about the interactions of anyone in regards to
CAP business, and/or policies designed to protect adolescents are well-within the purview.  Don't like it?  Don't join.

I'd love to see the mental hoops of someone who would try to make the argument that adults "friending" minors and having
direct private conversations, without the knowledge of their parents is "OK".  Legal doesn't make it "OK".
when there is an organization bright line about the role and relationship

I think there's a pretty clear difference between a cadet friending me, and thumbs upping pictures of my kids and the pics I posted on my facebook account from the airshow we went to as a squadron last weekend...

and then me initiating a private conversation with that cadet used to groom them toward a sexual encounter...



Is the risk of the latter occurring, really so severe that we have to entirely curtail the prior?

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 04:13:28 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2013, 04:02:08 AM
I spoke with one of our legal officers today, who the governor appointed to the bench a few years back, and he has serious doubts about social media rules.

From a legal perspective?

CAP is an at-will organization and just like any other corporation, the military, etc., they are free to enact any rules they wish.

A full prohibition in regards to using social media might not stand, but rules and policies about the interactions of anyone in regards to
CAP business, and/or policies designed to protect adolescents are well-within the purview.  Don't like it?  Don't join.

I'd love to see the mental hoops of someone who would try to make the argument that adults "friending" minors and having
direct private conversations, without the knowledge of their parents is "OK".  Legal doesn't make it "OK".
when there is an organization bright line about the role and relationship

Hey, not my words and I disagreed with him, but it was interesting to hear a judge try and poke holes in it...

Quote from: coudano on August 18, 2013, 04:18:08 AM
I think there's a pretty clear difference between a cadet friending me, and thumbs upping pictures of my kids and the pics I posted on my facebook account from the airshow we went to as a squadron last weekend...

and then me initiating a private conversation with that cadet used to groom them toward a sexual encounter...

Is the risk of the latter occurring, really so severe that we have to entirely curtail the prior?

The prior is not necessary, negating the need for the risk at all.

Why, on this green earth would you want cadets seeing pics of your kids, or anything else in your private universe
for that matter.  If emailing grandma pics direct, is too much, then friend her. but why would you allow
people who, by their very nature aren't supposed to be "friends", to have access to your inner circle?

If nothing else, it fosters an inappropriately familial relationship.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 04:23:02 AM

Quote from: coudano on August 18, 2013, 04:18:08 AM
I think there's a pretty clear difference between a cadet friending me, and thumbs upping pictures of my kids and the pics I posted on my facebook account from the airshow we went to as a squadron last weekend...

and then me initiating a private conversation with that cadet used to groom them toward a sexual encounter...

Is the risk of the latter occurring, really so severe that we have to entirely curtail the prior?

The prior is not necessary, negating the need for the risk at all.

Why, on this green earth would you want cadets seeing pics of your kids?

I'm just trying to advance the discussion.

About all I post on facebook/whatever is something along the lines of (looking at my last handfull of posts) my daughter smashing cupcake into her face at her 1yo birthday party (cute kid awww).  People who are on my friends list clicked the like button, because...  it's a cute kid pic, duh.  Those people on my friends list are friends, family, some co-workers, some CAP people, some church people, even a couple of cadets.  That's how social media works...  You network with people who know you to share pics of your cute kids and lolcats (or other such nonsense)

I mean I know how you feel about social media, because you have been clear on it in the other thread.  That doesn't really change the way most of the world works; that said the vast majority of social media interactions in the real world aren't predatory grooming, either.

I understand the changes, but as someone stated, the big elephant in the room is the cadets 18 and older and seniors 18 - 21. This is especially be noticed by those near the age boundaries. When I turned senior at 21 long time ago, I would have needed to unfriend my 18 - 20 year old cadet friends and no longer hang out with them, otherwise I will be in violation of this reg. this is the grey area that needs to be clarified. Also a 20 y/o cadet needs to have his mommy's signature on a permission slip. May be hard for those cadets away at school attending CAP as well. Also what happens if a cadet gets a job with a senior? I have a 20 yo cadet who works for a local EMS company as an EMT and his partner is a 19 yo senior member. They are alone 13 hours a day together. I guess that can be written up as a violation per the reg.

"Adult leaders will not meet with cadets in-person outside of official CAP activities without prior parental notification and approval."

I guess we can have the same mommy give us a note that gives the ok.

Wow! Reading this thread was like watching a train wreck! Too awful to watch, too fascinating to look away. For what's it worth, I express my admiration and respect for all of you that are commited to CP.  If I ever had any thoughts about CP work (other than O flights), this has scared me away from it!

Quote from: SunDog on August 18, 2013, 05:14:26 AM
Wow! Reading this thread was like watching a train wreck! Too awful to watch, too fascinating to look away. For what's it worth, I express my admiration and respect for all of you that are commited to CP.  If I ever had any thoughts about CP work (other than O flights), this has scared me away from it!

A coment like that would lead me to believe that its probably a good thing. If you get your panties in a bunch over something like this, I'm not sure I'd like you working with any of my cadets.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 18, 2013, 05:40:51 AM

Quote from: SunDog on August 18, 2013, 05:14:26 AM
Wow! Reading this thread was like watching a train wreck! Too awful to watch, too fascinating to look away. For what's it worth, I express my admiration and respect for all of you that are commited to CP.  If I ever had any thoughts about CP work (other than O flights), this has scared me away from it!

A coment like that would lead me to believe that its probably a good thing. If you get your panties in a bunch over something like this, I'm not sure I'd like you working with any of my cadets.

No need for snarky replies.  It is a not uncommon sentiment.

Quote from: PA Guy on August 18, 2013, 05:50:44 AMIt is a not uncommon sentiment.

Adults who are afraid of common sense polices that protect all parties involved probably should look elsewhere for
their volunteer service.

Those who "only do O-Rides" should read this in more detail

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 06:45:26 AM

Quote from: PA Guy on August 18, 2013, 05:50:44 AMIt is a not uncommon sentiment.

Adults who are afraid of common sense polices that protect all parties involved probably should look elsewhere for
their volunteer service.

Those who "only do O-Rides" should read this in more detail

Yet, the original statement is grounded in a whole lot of reality. 

O-flight hours are an ongoing challenge in my Wing...flying hours are down; a true reality in virtually all Wings.  I personally know of 2 pilots that don't participate in o-flights because of the cadet protection concerns and the potential impact they may have.   Many pilots already aren't flying simply due to the hassles the organization has created anyway.  So, is this likely to attract more or push more away?  The issue can't be ignored.

I haven't read all of this blog but after reading just the first page (it's late and I'm going to bed) I have noticed that nobody has mentioned insurance.  What do we do if Mom and Dad, both being non-members, get hurt while they are taking advantage of allowing them to roam through the activity to see what little Johnny/Janey Jumpup are doing during this SAREX or encampment, week-end activity.  They're not members so they're not insured.  That could get interesting.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 06:45:26 AM

Quote from: PA Guy on August 18, 2013, 05:50:44 AMIt is a not uncommon sentiment.

Adults who are afraid of common sense polices that protect all parties involved probably should look elsewhere for
their volunteer service.

Those who "only do O-Rides" should read this in more detail

I don't disagree with that, generally speaking.

On the other hand, there is a line where it's not reasonable anymore.
And CAP is not really very good at recognizing and not crossing that line (see Safety).
How's that for ironic...

It's kind of the same mentality, "we can require ANYTHING because child abuse is such a touchy topic that anybody who says anything against a proposed policy will be seen as a perv".  Look me in the eye and tell me that hasn't happened, can't happen, and isn't happening with this, right now.

They banned pressure cookers for sale at the store after boston, and knocked down the building where the newtown shootings happened, for crying out loud.


**fwiw, i have knowledge of a case of inapprorpiate contact between an opilot and a cadet on an o-ride.  I also know pilots who refuse to fly cadets on o-rides because of situations/accusations like that.  I don't think the 3 people on an o-ride rule is a bad idea, at all.  But it's not always going to be practical.  One solution might be to allow a senior member on the back seat of a cadet o-ride, if a second cadet is not available.

Except for the parts of the syllabus that do not want a back seat passenger or two in the aircraft.
What do we do then?

Install a nannycam with squished lead seal to restrict access to the power switch, CVR or FDR's?

The documents allows for pilots to fly cadets alone.  It establishes a best practice and then allows for exceptions.

RIF.

I would like to see a "recommended", even "strongly recommended", if that's what they need to feel "good" about it,  on the vehicle occupancy, over a "shall". There are times when it simply isn't possible, or outright an absolute major inconvenience to have to do it in a different way.

Because otherwise when you are in a position that you've got no other choice, you're outright in violation. We all know how well the vigilante justice system works, and trial by media, when the entire situation is far from understood.

I can't wait to see what kind of other phantom restrictions come of this, that people make up. Like the "no female cadets at the overnight if there's no female senior members.." and citing CPPT that says nothing of the sort.

The no female thing is specifically addressed.

Page 10 allows for special circumstances:

"3-8. Special Contingencies. This regulation provides guidance for the majority of cadet-related environments but
cannot anticipate every scenario. The two highest ranking adult leaders on scene may, through mutual agreement,
decide to forego a standard of practice if doing so offers a the least harmful course of action. In such instances, the
ranking member will, for the sake of transparency, inform his or her superior of the one-time deviation from a
standard of practice within 24 hours. The allowance for a special contingency is intended for the unusual situation
and shall not be used routinely as a means of circumventing normal standards of practice."

Experience has shown that making things a "should" allows people to take that option as a part of planning with no
thought, necessarily to the consequences, where if you make things "shall" (assuming anyone involved has read the
pertinent reg) sets the absolute expectation, and means everyone involved will know that if a special circumstance
exists, all involved are on eggshells and need to watch the "p's and q's".

I don't think its unreasonable for adults to be a little bit leery of interacting with youths even when rules have been put in place to protect both groups.  Cases of bogus charges against adults are rare and perhaps some folks may worry too much about it, but if you've joined CAP for some other reason than to work with cadets it doesn't make you a bad person if you'd prefer not to take any risks in this area.  After all, we often laud pilots for having "personal minimums" to minimize risk that go above and beyond what CAP requires. 

Nothing wrong with staying away from the CP, but a lot of times its folks who are in it for themselves rather than cadets who get all wound up about it.

Quote from: Grumpy on August 18, 2013, 07:57:01 AM
I haven't read all of this blog but after reading just the first page (it's late and I'm going to bed) I have noticed that nobody has mentioned insurance.  What do we do if Mom and Dad, both being non-members, get hurt while they are taking advantage of allowing them to roam through the activity to see what little Johnny/Janey Jumpup are doing during this SAREX or encampment, week-end activity.  They're not members so they're not insured.  That could get interesting.

They are not members, and that they assume the risk, and own medical expenses.  Do remember that everyone is(or will be in the near future) to have health insurance, or pay a fine.  Isn't that what the Affordable Health Care Act is all about?

If they want to see what their cadet is doing on a SAREX; they can follow all they want, but they are not getting in my vehicle, participating in whatever activity we are executing, nor are they going to be allowed to impede my mission.

I agree with you.  But somebody might let them in the area and I can picture some parent "floating around in the background" tripping over some extension cord getting hurt and trying to sue CAP.  I call it the "McDonald's Syndrome".

Quote from: RogueLeader on August 18, 2013, 06:35:58 PM
They are not members, and that they assume the risk, and own medical expenses.

Not if we allow them to stay, or worse, help on any level.  CAP, Inc. is assuming responsibility for their actions in those cases.

I think you guys *might* be reading a little too much into that little part of the policy.

I'm not sure it means "Mommy & Daddy can pull up a bunk and stay for the week" and prepare for it.

I think it means "there are no sooper-sekrit CAP events that parents are excluded from at least looking into"

Which means that someplace, somewhere, someone told a parent that they weren't allowed to observe the training that their cherubs were going thru, like "No, you can't come in here, we're doing something important" not allowed.  And now we have to put it in writing that you can't do that.

But also, that someone can't say "No, no, parents are excluded from this event. Its just me and Cadet Jones at *this* conference at a remote location that was on nobody's calendar..."

^ I think you should re-read.

There is specific verbiage that says that non-member parents can supervise activities when
only one senior member is available. 

Section 3-3 d. 3.c "parents"
"c. Parents. The project officer notifies parents or guardians of participating cadets that the activity
is being conducted with only 1 adult leader; (one of the parents might volunteer to attend the event, and their presence is to be welcomed)"

This is going to be the loophole used in planning for units with only one active senior.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 09:05:58 PMThis is going to be the loophole used in planning for units with only one active senior.

..and a hook, line and sinker for the recruiters. ;-)

Quote from: a2capt on August 18, 2013, 09:08:29 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 09:05:58 PMThis is going to be the loophole used in planning for units with only one active senior.

..and a hook, line and sinker for the recruiters. ;-)

Why bother joining, when you can just "den-mother" by just being mom.

Quote from: NIN on August 18, 2013, 08:58:17 PM
I think you guys *might* be reading a little too much into that little part of the policy.

I'm not sure it means "Mommy & Daddy can pull up a bunk and stay for the week" and prepare for it.

I think it means "there are no sooper-sekrit CAP events that parents are excluded from at least looking into"

Which means that someplace, somewhere, someone told a parent that they weren't allowed to observe the training that their cherubs were going thru, like "No, you can't come in here, we're doing something important" not allowed.  And now we have to put it in writing that you can't do that.

But also, that someone can't say "No, no, parents are excluded from this event. Its just me and Cadet Jones at *this* conference at a remote location that was on nobody's calendar..."

The same legal officer/judge I mentioned earlier had a nice chuckle at how that was written in the draft reg. it says CAP activity, not Cadet activity. So, in essence, a parent under this new rule could invite themselfs into the next BOG meeting... You know, no secret meetings and all  ;)

Nothing like enabling helicopter parents.  ::)

Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2013, 09:20:02 PMSo, in essence, a parent under this new rule could invite themselfs into the next BOG meeting... You know, no secret meetings and all  ;)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize BoG meetings were cadet activities...

Quote from: dwb on August 18, 2013, 09:36:49 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2013, 09:20:02 PMSo, in essence, a parent under this new rule could invite themselfs into the next BOG meeting... You know, no secret meetings and all  ;)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize BoG meetings were cadet activities...

Re-read the rule as currently written in the draft...it says "CAP activity" not "Cadet activity"

/ahem

c. Open Access. All CAP activities[/u] will be open to parental observation.

(emphasis added)

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 09:05:58 PM
^ I think you should re-read.

There is specific verbiage that says that non-member parents can supervise activities when
only one senior member is available. 

Section 3-3 d. 3.c "parents"
"c. Parents. The project officer notifies parents or guardians of participating cadets that the activity
is being conducted with only 1 adult leader; (one of the parents might volunteer to attend the event, and their presence is to be welcomed)"

This is going to be the loophole used in planning for units with only one active senior.

Hmmm, for some reason I kind of glossed over that paragraph. Hrrmph.

I still wonder if thats just poorly worded and the intent does not involve billeting for the parents :)

I'm hopeful it was well intentioned and not thought all the way through, because the implications are pretty serious.

CC: "Sorry, the bivouac is canceled due to lack of proper supervision..."

Random Parent no one has ever met: "I'm not busy, I'll go..."

CC: "Sorry, I'm not comfortable with non-members participating as if they were FBI-checked members..."

Random Parent: Comes into next meeting waiving 52-16 and an IG complaint with the term "presence to be welcomed" highlighted.  (and it might be sustainable as written).

I agree that this was probably meant to allow parents to "see what is going on, ask questions, etc.", but seriously, a reg that basically outlines all sorts of rules about boundary violations between check members, but some random, non-checked parent can just "show up?"

Makes no sense.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 09:48:46 PM
Makes no sense.

No, you have questioned a cadet protection measure, so you must be hiding something.
We'll be by with a computer forensics team and a warrant to find the kiddie porn on your computer shortly.

While it SHOULD be cleared up, the intent is clearly any cadet programs activity:

Quote3-3. Universal Standards of Practice. These standards apply across all aspects of the Cadet Program.

a. Authorization for Activities.
Every cadet activity must operate under the authority of the commander of the hosting unit. Commanders frequently delegate operational control over the activity and the authority to direct all participating members to a project officer.

b. Notification of Activities.
Whenever reasonably possible, cadet activities will be scheduled at least two weeks in advance and announced on a web -
based unit calendar that enables cadets' parents to verify that a purported event is indeed an official activity. In the rare instance that a short - notice activity arises, the unit commander or project officer will notify parents of the event at the earliest opportunity.

c. Open Access.
All CAP activities will be open to parental observation. There are no secret meetings permitted. Commanders and project officers will make reasonable accommodations to allow open access. However, activities hosted on military installations and other third - party secure facilities offer only limited access to civilians.
In such instances, the project officer could be unable to accommodate parents' access requests, except at certain specially - designated times.

SIZE emphasis mine. The whole section clearly states these are standards for all aspects of the cadet program, not CAP in general.

Are parents now allowed to go on missions?  Do we have to worry about parents going along on ground team missions now? 

Quote from: RiverAux on August 18, 2013, 10:01:14 PM
Are parents now allowed to go on missions?  Do we have to worry about parents going along on ground team missions now?

It's not a cadet OR CAP activity - it's a mission, nor are they permitted to participate. At best, as written they can observe the activity, not helicopter parent over their kid.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 18, 2013, 10:00:38 PM
While it SHOULD be cleared up, the intent is clearly any cadet programs activity:

Where's the line?

Anything that involves cadets is covered.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 10:09:19 PM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 18, 2013, 10:00:38 PM
While it SHOULD be cleared up, the intent is clearly any cadet programs activity:

Where's the line?

Anything that involves cadets is covered.

An ES mission is not a CP activity.

Here's basically what my response would be to a parent tagging along on my ground team...

"So you're insisting on being with your cadet at all times?" "Yes" "OK, no problem. Cadet Snuffy, report to the RUL for retasking at mission base."

SAR isn't secret, but I have no interest in taking untrained, non-member parents into the woods with me. I don't have time for that. We're kind of jumping straight to the worst case scenario here, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to actually see it happen.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 18, 2013, 10:10:20 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 10:09:19 PM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 18, 2013, 10:00:38 PM
While it SHOULD be cleared up, the intent is clearly any cadet programs activity:

Where's the line?

Anything that involves cadets is covered.

An ES mission is not a CP activity.

A fair position, but not really supportable.  52-10 clearly covers all activities which include cadets today.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 10:13:21 PM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 18, 2013, 10:10:20 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 10:09:19 PM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 18, 2013, 10:00:38 PM
While it SHOULD be cleared up, the intent is clearly any cadet programs activity:

Where's the line?

Anything that involves cadets is covered.

An ES mission is not a CP activity.

A fair position, but not really supportable.  52-10 clearly covers all activities which include cadets today.

Were discussing the new add on to 52-16,  not the new proposal in terms of current rules.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 18, 2013, 10:20:45 PM
Were discussing the new add on to 52-16,  not the new proposal in terms of current rules.

Yes, and to my understanding, these rules will be incorporated into 52-16 as the "new" 52-10 and
52-10 retired.

This will be a consolidation of all regs and procedures regarding Cadet involvement in CAP.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 10:25:16 PM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 18, 2013, 10:20:45 PM
Were discussing the new add on to 52-16,  not the new proposal in terms of current rules.

Yes, and to my understanding, these rules will be incorporated into 52-16 as the "new" 52-10 and
52-10 retired.

This will be a consolidation of all regs and procedures regarding Cadet involvement in CAP.

So then what we have to work with is laid out in front of us.

There's a difference between "parental observation" and "following Cadet Johnny everywhere he goes". Being allowed to observe the activity doesn't mean mom is allowed to stand in the men's restroom and make sure there's no horseplay in there.

I just unpacked my bags from Denver, and now that I have access to a better keyboard than provided by my phone, let me start with a word of thanks.

As one of the principal authors of the enhanced CPP draft, I genuinely appreciate the feedback so far.  That is precisely why we released the draft on the same day I briefed the Command Council about the project.  Even though we went to a great deal of trouble to include "street-level" CP officers, parents, and wing DCPs as we developed the materials, we knew that having as many sets of fresh eyes as possible on the project would be helpful and allow us to improve and revise before we return to the senior leadership in the late fall or winter.

And although it was mentioned in the Executive Summary (http://www.capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/Cadet_Protection_Policy_2014_____Su_E3DFC5B41A51D.pdf) and  White Paper (http://www.capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/CPP_White_Paper_404B325ED0C18.pdf), it bears repeating that lawyers and other legal professionals have reviewed and approved the drafts up to this point.  Indeed, none of the legal professionals noted any significant problems.  But we welcome any and all input as we move toward a final draft.

Let me respond to a few specifics that have been mentioned so far:

1. Social media restrictions.  The only thing certain about social media is that it will morph and change faster than an organization like ours can respond.  (They are inside our OODA loop.)  So rather than get bogged down into specifics about how to set up multiple FaceBook profiles or discussing ever evolving security settings, we tried to law out some rules that will help prevent improper relationships even as the platforms evolve under us.  In my civilian job I spend many, many hours dealing with cases that starter with innocent social media chatter and spun out of control into wildly inappropriate communications.  We are trying to provde commanders, parents, cadets, and CP officers with tools to detect and prevent problems before they develop into acute incidents.

2.  Parental visitations.  As some have mentioned, this rule is designed to reassure parents that we do not have "secret meetings" and to reassure them that their cadets are being treated fairly and protected.  It is not meant to allow a parent to hover continuously in the background for extended periods of time.  Based on your feedback, we will play with the wording on that.  However, I am not sure I want to exempt ES completely.  I don't want parents to go tromping through the woods, but I'm not sure I see the harm in letting them see the quarters at a search base if that is important to them.  Perhaps some of you could suggest some language.

3.  52-16 vs 52-10.  I must admit that I was the main driver behind the suggestion that we roll 52-10 into the 52-16.  I think it makes sense to have all of the CP-related stuff in one place.  Others have suggested that it makes the 52-16 too large and unwieldy.  There may be truth in that.  Ultimately it is about effective communication of the rules.  Please continue your feedback.

4. Group emails.  I can only agree that things like wing email reflectors and bulk emails in general present little risk.  We will definitely work on that to focus on "one on one" type emails occurring outside of scheduled activities.  Again, any specific wording suggestions are appreciated.

5. Why this came about.  It is not in response to any lawsuit.  (Indeed, I was just briefed at the BoG meeting that there are no active lawsuits involving CAP as either plaintiff or defendant.  As in absolutely none.)  This was done mostly because it has been 25 years since we created the CPP in 1988, and it was time for a review of our policies to see if there are still "state of the art."  Our program has been highly successful, in fact acclaimed by outside experts as such.  If anything, it was prompted by the recent difficulties experienced by the Scouts and some religious organizations, as well as our own few acute incidents.  Mostly it was just time.

Again, we welcome your feedback and criticism.  It has always been our plan to allow member comment and input.  And I promise you that it will be carefully considered.  That's the whole point of posting the materials on line.  I suppose I would prefer that you post your specific wording suggestions on the Comment Portion  (http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?enhanced_cadet_protection_policy_for_14&show=entry&blogID=1040) of the Cadet Blog, but mostly that is because I am as usual a little overscheduled this week and if you post it on the Cadet Blog then Mr. LaFond will see it and put the grist into the editing mill, so to speak.

Any more questions? (Every time I hit "preview", four new replies have been posted.  Keep 'em coming.)


Ned Lee
CP Enthusiast

Ned is awesome.

Nice to see perception and reality are pretty close here.

I'll add a few comments to Ned's comments. My opinions only. Get your salt shakers out, etc. etc.

Quote from: Ned on August 18, 2013, 10:36:28 PM
Let me respond to a few specifics that have been mentioned so far:

1. Social media restrictions.  The only thing certain about social media is that it will morph and change faster than an organization like ours can respond.  (They are inside our OODA loop.)  So rather than get bogged down into specifics about how to set up multiple FaceBook profiles or discussing ever evolving security settings, we tried to law out some rules that will help prevent improper relationships even as the platforms evolve under us.  In my civilian job I spend many, many hours dealing with cases that starter with innocent social media chatter and spun out of control into wildly inappropriate communications.  We are trying to provde commanders, parents, cadets, and CP officers with tools to detect and prevent problems before they develop into acute incidents.

No comments - I'm not active with social media.

Quote2.  Parental visitations.  As some have mentioned, this rule is designed to reassure parents that we do not have "secret meetings" and to reassure them that their cadets are being treated fairly and protected.  It is not meant to allow a parent to hover continuously in the background for extended periods of time.  Based on your feedback, we will play with the wording on that.  However, I am not sure I want to exempt ES completely.  I don't want parents to go tromping through the woods, but I'm not sure I see the harm in letting them see the quarters at a search base if that is important to them.  Perhaps some of you could suggest some language.

Nothing yet. I'll think on it.

Quote3.  52-16 vs 52-10.  I must admit that I was the main driver behind the suggestion that we roll 52-10 into the 52-16.  I think it makes sense to have all of the CP-related stuff in one place.  Others have suggested that it makes the 52-16 too large and unwieldy.  There may be truth in that.  Ultimately it is about effective communication of the rules.  Please continue your feedback.

Start using series of regs in the 52 series instead of one huge reg. 52-1 Cadet Program, 52-2 Cadet Protection, 52-3 Encampments, 52-4 National Cadet Special Activities, etc, etc, etc. That also helps folks looking up the regs find the topic they need quicker that downloading a large reg and flipping through it to find the two pages they need.

Quote4. Group emails.  I can only agree that things like wing email reflectors and bulk emails in general present little risk.  We will definitely work on that to focus on "one on one" type emails occurring outside of scheduled activities.  Again, any specific wording suggestions are appreciated.

Get National to change their directions when pulling the email list off to paste the list into the BCC field instead of the TO field. Using the TO field lets everyone know the unit or specific group of members is getting it. Yes, I know some email programs will flag emails with too many addresses in the TO field as spam, but if the members tag the appropriate members as Not Spam, they should get the emails.

Quote5. Why this came about.  It is not in response to any lawsuit.  (Indeed, I was just briefed at the BoG meeting that there are no active lawsuits involving CAP as either plaintiff or defendant.  As in absolutely none.)  This was done mostly because it has been 25 years since we created the CPP in 1988, and it was time for a review of our policies to see if there are still "state of the art."  Our program has been highly successful, in fact acclaimed by outside experts as such.  If anything, it was prompted by the recent difficulties experienced by the Scouts and some religious organizations, as well as our own few acute incidents.  Mostly it was just time.

All policies should be reviewed on a regular basis. At work, we review our policies every five years, doing 20% per year.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 09:48:46 PM
I'm hopeful it was well intentioned and not thought all the way through, because the implications are pretty serious.

CC: "Sorry, the bivouac is canceled due to lack of proper supervision..."

Random Parent no one has ever met: "I'm not busy, I'll go..."

CC: "Sorry, I'm not comfortable with non-members participating as if they were FBI-checked members..."

Random Parent: Comes into next meeting waiving waving 52-16 and an IG complaint with the term "presence to be welcomed" highlighted.  (and it might be sustainable as written).

I agree that this was probably meant to allow parents to "see what is going on, ask questions, etc.", but seriously, a reg that basically outlines all sorts of rules about boundary violations between check members, but some random, non-checked parent can just "show up?"

Makes no sense.

FTFY! Huge change in meaning.  :angel:

Perhaps we should add a clause that "...waving 52-16 waives your rights..."!

Something that came up today in discussing this draft with my cadet staff is what about "sensitive communications" and the requirement to cc parents on all emails?

As an example, we have a cadet with a learning disability.  The C/CC and I have been emailing ideas on working with this cadet back and forth to each other.  And quite frankly those emails are none of the C/CC's parents business.  And if I was the parent of the cadet with the disability I would be quite unhappy that you're sharing this conversation with some set of parents I don't even know.

Or another example of a cadet who is making some poor lifestyle choices.  My C/CC and I have a phone call and talk about it.  Then he emails me some ideas and strategies.  Again, C/CC's mom and dad really shouldn't have access to that IMO.

I'm ok with cc'ing my unit CC on the emails, but under the draft that would not be an option if I knew the parent addresses.

And FWIW, my cadet staff thought the email to parents provision was entirely over-the-top.  They could see the unit CC but not parents, and most doubt the effectiveness (which I can second) since it seems parents rarely read an email even when I want them to.

It also took one of my more creative cadet staff about 10 seconds to develop a loophole around the email rule. 

Frankly the email and text message rule (which is even more ridiculous in implementation than email... heck half the time i have no idea which cadet is asking some question via text much less their parent's number and my unit cc doesnt text) strikes me more as something to easily hang someone on when they make "boundary" errors (great term for being creepy).

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 18, 2013, 05:40:51 AM

Quote from: SunDog on August 18, 2013, 05:14:26 AM
Wow! Reading this thread was like watching a train wreck! Too awful to watch, too fascinating to look away. For what's it worth, I express my admiration and respect for all of you that are commited to CP.  If I ever had any thoughts about CP work (other than O flights), this has scared me away from it!

A coment like that would lead me to believe that its probably a good thing. If you get your panties in a bunch over something like this, I'm not sure I'd like you working with any of my cadets.

Dude! I was expressing genuine admiration for those dedicated to CP. . .but fair enough; I promise not to work with any of your cadets.  Staying current and proficient is a big enough lift as it is.  CP hasn't been on my radar, other than O rides, just because of my time budget.  I do understand CAP has to do what can rationally be done to protect Cadets. Which isn't necessarily the same as keeping a SM from being hurled under a bus if a Cadet cries wolf. I'm willing to take a chance and fly with two Cadets. But not alone with just one, and my Wing has some pilots who will NOT fly 'em at all. Not CAP's fault, of course. Just the times and culture. Maybe, for CP folks, you can boil it down to "Comms with a Cadet must be with a parent or other SM cognizant ". Can't write a reg that way, but store it in memory as a rule of thumb?

Ned, here's my $.02. 

Quote from: Ned on August 18, 2013, 10:36:28 PM

1. Social media restrictions.  The only thing certain about social media is that it will morph and change faster than an organization like ours can respond.  (They are inside our OODA loop.)  So rather than get bogged down into specifics about how to set up multiple FaceBook profiles or discussing ever evolving security settings, we tried to law out some rules that will help prevent improper relationships even as the platforms evolve under us.  In my civilian job I spend many, many hours dealing with cases that starter with innocent social media chatter and spun out of control into wildly inappropriate communications.  We are trying to provde commanders, parents, cadets, and CP officers with tools to detect and prevent problems before they develop into acute incidents.

I have a lot of reservations with this one as being very much "baby with the bathwater"; it will shut down all legitimate conversations as well as the miniscule fraction of inappropriate conversations.   I have Cadets message me on Facebook to ask questions about CAP areas that I have expertise in all the time.   I've had Cadets ask for advice on how to approach problems within their unit, ask for recommendation letters for NCSA boards, etc, etc.   

The call for a separate account for purposes of communicating with cadets is unworkable.   Facebook apps on phones and tablets do not support multiple Facebook accounts, and having multiple personal accounts is against Facebook's terms of service.  Effectively, this means that I must unfriend and ignore all cadets or run afoul of either CPP or Facebook's terms of service.   I think the message that this sends to cadets is unhealthy: You are too toxic to communicate with, bye bye.   

Quote from: Ned on August 18, 2013, 10:36:28 PM

2.  Parental visitations.  As some have mentioned, this rule is designed to reassure parents that we do not have "secret meetings" and to reassure them that their cadets are being treated fairly and protected.  It is not meant to allow a parent to hover continuously in the background for extended periods of time.  Based on your feedback, we will play with the wording on that.  However, I am not sure I want to exempt ES completely.  I don't want parents to go tromping through the woods, but I'm not sure I see the harm in letting them see the quarters at a search base if that is important to them.  Perhaps some of you could suggest some language.

"Parents are encouraged to briefly inspect any CAP activity for the purpose of observing the conditions and environment that their Cadet will be participating in.   Parents are reminded, however, that some activities may require permission from the host installation, facility, or other authority to gain access to certain CAP activity locations, and such permission may not be within CAP's control.   Activity Commanders will make reasonable accommodations to escort parents through the activity site when such accommodations due not unduly and adversely affect the accomplishment of the activity or mission in question.   The Commander of the Activity Commander or Incident Commander, as appropriate, shall rule on whether or not such access may be excluded.  Such determination should ideally be made prior to the commencement of the activity or to deployment of mission personnel to the field.   Wing Commanders may issue blanket exemptions via supplement for certain types of activities where it would be universally impractical to permit parental visitations (i.e. military installations, ground team searches, etc)."

This, to my mind, sets the expectations: Parents can inspect the environment (inspections are finite and generally fast; eliminates the never-ending "visit") but cannot expect to do so if they either cannot gain access to the location or if it will impact the safe and effective execution of the activity or mission.  If there's a question, there's a way to resolve it, hopefully ahead of time.   It also allows the Wing Commander to eliminate most challenges where certain circumstances are deemed impractical/impossible.

Quote from: Ned on August 18, 2013, 10:36:28 PM

4. Group emails.  I can only agree that things like wing email reflectors and bulk emails in general present little risk.  We will definitely work on that to focus on "one on one" type emails occurring outside of scheduled activities.  Again, any specific wording suggestions are appreciated.

"Communications disseminated via email reflectors, mass text messages, alert paging systems, or any other mass communication method that meets one or more of the following circumstances are permitted.  Such communications should be of a general nature, and not directed at individual Cadet members.

1. Includes the Commander(s) of one of more echelons of command
2. Includes the parents of all included cadets
3. Includes at least 3 Senior Members"

Quote from: Ned on August 18, 2013, 10:36:28 PM


Again, we welcome your feedback and criticism.  It has always been our plan to allow member comment and input.  And I promise you that it will be carefully considered.

Generally speaking, many of these proposed modifications to CPP seem to me to be overreaching and still will not prohibit the conduct of those who would seek to have inappropriate relationships with Cadets. 

I would like to see an emphasis on training Cadets to recognize and discern what is proper and improper, with clear reporting guidelines for obvious violations and encouragement to discuss any questionable/borderline cases with their parents initially to see if further action is warranted.   For violations, Cadets (and their parents) should have multiple, published reporting options: CC, higher HQ CC, Chaplain, IG, etc so that the most comfortable option may be selected. 

Some of the proposals are good: SMs not in closed rooms with Cadets, not bunking or showering with them.   However, some accommodations might be made for events like Encampment; FLWG has typically bunked the Flight's Tactical Officer in the open bay with the Flight for supervisory/safety reasons.   Language that encourages supervision and safety while prohibiting individuals or small groups from bunking together might be better; I am unsure how I would word it, however.

I'm also not sure that I am comfortable with this:

Quote
Adult leaders and cadets will use the showers at separate times when
reasonably possible. Devices that have cameras are prohibited from the
shower areas and barracks area when cadets are dressing."

To my mind, the showering restriction should be an absolute.   There is no reason to have Cadets and SMs showering at the same time, ever.   At most, a provision to allow a SM to be present in the same building but out of view of the showers when reasonably possible should be entertained - again, for supervisory and safety purposes.     

Cameras and other picture/video recording devices should be prohibited from use whenever and wherever any member - Cadet or otherwise - is dressing or showering.

Regarding the "meeting outside of CAP" - if the parent has been notified and has given approval, why is a third party required?


Lastly, were parents of Cadets asked to help develop these proposed changes, or will any be consulted prior to adoption?


 

Quote from: JoeTomasone on August 19, 2013, 08:13:40 PM
Generally speaking, many of these proposed modifications to CPP seem to me to be overreaching and still will not prohibit the conduct of those who would seek to have inappropriate relationships with Cadets. 

Actually, these things may not prohibit the conduct, but they certainly cause it to 'stick out like sore thumb'

A number of these recommendations came from the "best practices" of other organizations, some from CDC or law enforcement, and still others from CP-knowledgeable members.

I said it in a thread earlier this year:

Quote
I've said this before, and I will say it again on this subject:  much of this is a cultural issue and requires leaders to act as leaders and members to act as (much as I hate this word in this context) "fiduciaries" of our cadets. 

When someone preys on a cadet, they are NOT operating in a vacuum.  Many of their actions are seen and not reported, or seen and ignored as "OK" when most of the time what they are or were doing is completely against the rules.  They're having inappropriate conversations with cadets, they're in closer than appropriate contact with cadets, there are instances where you see them "outside their lane" as it pertains to cadets. All of this adds up and if you let it continue, people become inured to what is right and suddenly "wrong" becomes "normal."

Some of this is there to "staunch" certain methods of communications that have proven to be an avenue in "acute" CPP cases (ie. unsupervised email, texts, etc), some is to take behaviors and put them into a more harsh light.

I mentioned earlier in this thread about a member who was acting poorly on Facebook:

QuoteThis speaks to "appropriate behavior and decorum" among officers.  Didn't we recently have a very public example of really poor online (Facebook) behavior by a (now former) CAP officer who did not understand the concept of "appropriate behavior and decorum"?  This member's chain of command declined to do anything about said online behavior when it was pointed out.

Why? Because nobody knew enough about social media and Facebook or was paying the slightest amount of attention to be able to say "Hey, there, Captain, do you think that its entirely appropriate that cadets are commenting on EVERYTHING on your Facebook and you're using that kind of language and [not very thinly veiled] sexual references in front of cadets?"

(mind you, I'm not saying that member was doing *anything* in the nature of cadet protection, but you can see where that kind of thing tends to "break down the professional veil" or the "professional distance," if you will, ,between officers and cadets)

"Familiarity breeds contempt."

But since there were really no guidelines about any of that, nobody bothered to say "Hey, whats the deal here? You're making some really poor judgement calls, Captain."

I'm still not 100% on the whole boundary violations thing, yet.  I'm still thinking that it provides a "too easy" mechanism for folks who have a philosophical or political leaning in one direction to impose a certain level of morality on others by merely suggesting that their "less than puritanical" behaviors might be a "boundary violation."

Does admitting that I'm living with a woman to whom I'm not married (I am not, BTW, but just pretend that I am..) constitute a "boundary violation" in the minds of some folks who might be "wrapped around the axle"?

Quote from: NIN on August 19, 2013, 09:56:36 PMActually, these things may not prohibit the conduct, but they certainly cause it to 'stick out like sore thumb'

This.

How much of bad behavior, regulatory violations, and generally poor operations are caused because
no one in the conversation has actually read the relevent regulation, and/or consider their unit CC as the only source, and he is either uninformed, misinformed, or deliberately characterizing things?

In this case, the cadets, parents, and all the members will know where the lines are - someone should
see the issues and raise their hand.

I can't tell you how many times I've walked into a situation where the lines were either "clear", or "common sense", only to find that those involved had no idea of a reg I considered common knowledge, or that they ignored their "spidey sense" because the "CC said it was ok".

Quote from: JoeTomasone on August 19, 2013, 08:13:40 PM

Ned, here's my $.02. 

Quote from: Ned on August 18, 2013, 10:36:28 PM

1. Social media restrictions.  The only thing certain about social media is that it will morph and change faster than an organization like ours can respond.  (They are inside our OODA loop.)  So rather than get bogged down into specifics about how to set up multiple FaceBook profiles or discussing ever evolving security settings, we tried to law out some rules that will help prevent improper relationships even as the platforms evolve under us.  In my civilian job I spend many, many hours dealing with cases that starter with innocent social media chatter and spun out of control into wildly inappropriate communications.  We are trying to provde commanders, parents, cadets, and CP officers with tools to detect and prevent problems before they develop into acute incidents.

I have a lot of reservations with this one as being very much "baby with the bathwater"; it will shut down all legitimate conversations as well as the miniscule fraction of inappropriate conversations.   I have Cadets message me on Facebook to ask questions about CAP areas that I have expertise in all the time.   I've had Cadets ask for advice on how to approach problems within their unit, ask for recommendation letters for NCSA boards, etc, etc.   

The call for a separate account for purposes of communicating with cadets is unworkable.   Facebook apps on phones and tablets do not support multiple Facebook accounts, and having multiple personal accounts is against Facebook's terms of service.  Effectively, this means that I must unfriend and ignore all cadets or run afoul of either CPP or Facebook's terms of service.   I think the message that this sends to cadets is unhealthy: You are too toxic to communicate with, bye bye.   

Quote from: Ned on August 18, 2013, 10:36:28 PM

2.  Parental visitations.  As some have mentioned, this rule is designed to reassure parents that we do not have "secret meetings" and to reassure them that their cadets are being treated fairly and protected.  It is not meant to allow a parent to hover continuously in the background for extended periods of time.  Based on your feedback, we will play with the wording on that.  However, I am not sure I want to exempt ES completely.  I don't want parents to go tromping through the woods, but I'm not sure I see the harm in letting them see the quarters at a search base if that is important to them.  Perhaps some of you could suggest some language.

"Parents are encouraged to briefly inspect any CAP activity for the purpose of observing the conditions and environment that their Cadet will be participating in.   Parents are reminded, however, that some activities may require permission from the host installation, facility, or other authority to gain access to certain CAP activity locations, and such permission may not be within CAP's control.   Activity Commanders will make reasonable accommodations to escort parents through the activity site when such accommodations due not unduly and adversely affect the accomplishment of the activity or mission in question.   The Commander of the Activity Commander or Incident Commander, as appropriate, shall rule on whether or not such access may be excluded.  Such determination should ideally be made prior to the commencement of the activity or to deployment of mission personnel to the field.   Wing Commanders may issue blanket exemptions via supplement for certain types of activities where it would be universally impractical to permit parental visitations (i.e. military installations, ground team searches, etc)."

This, to my mind, sets the expectations: Parents can inspect the environment (inspections are finite and generally fast; eliminates the never-ending "visit") but cannot expect to do so if they either cannot gain access to the location or if it will impact the safe and effective execution of the activity or mission.  If there's a question, there's a way to resolve it, hopefully ahead of time.   It also allows the Wing Commander to eliminate most challenges where certain circumstances are deemed impractical/impossible.

Quote from: Ned on August 18, 2013, 10:36:28 PM

4. Group emails.  I can only agree that things like wing email reflectors and bulk emails in general present little risk.  We will definitely work on that to focus on "one on one" type emails occurring outside of scheduled activities.  Again, any specific wording suggestions are appreciated.

"Communications disseminated via email reflectors, mass text messages, alert paging systems, or any other mass communication method that meets one or more of the following circumstances are permitted.  Such communications should be of a general nature, and not directed at individual Cadet members.

1. Includes the Commander(s) of one of more echelons of command
2. Includes the parents of all included cadets
3. Includes at least 3 Senior Members"

Quote from: Ned on August 18, 2013, 10:36:28 PM


Again, we welcome your feedback and criticism.  It has always been our plan to allow member comment and input.  And I promise you that it will be carefully considered.

Generally speaking, many of these proposed modifications to CPP seem to me to be overreaching and still will not prohibit the conduct of those who would seek to have inappropriate relationships with Cadets. 

I would like to see an emphasis on training Cadets to recognize and discern what is proper and improper, with clear reporting guidelines for obvious violations and encouragement to discuss any questionable/borderline cases with their parents initially to see if further action is warranted.   For violations, Cadets (and their parents) should have multiple, published reporting options: CC, higher HQ CC, Chaplain, IG, etc so that the most comfortable option may be selected. 

Some of the proposals are good: SMs not in closed rooms with Cadets, not bunking or showering with them.   However, some accommodations might be made for events like Encampment; FLWG has typically bunked the Flight's Tactical Officer in the open bay with the Flight for supervisory/safety reasons.   Language that encourages supervision and safety while prohibiting individuals or small groups from bunking together might be better; I am unsure how I would word it, however.

I'm also not sure that I am comfortable with this:

Quote
Adult leaders and cadets will use the showers at separate times when
reasonably possible. Devices that have cameras are prohibited from the
shower areas and barracks area when cadets are dressing."

To my mind, the showering restriction should be an absolute.   There is no reason to have Cadets and SMs showering at the same time, ever.   At most, a provision to allow a SM to be present in the same building but out of view of the showers when reasonably possible should be entertained - again, for supervisory and safety purposes.     

Cameras and other picture/video recording devices should be prohibited from use whenever and wherever any member - Cadet or otherwise - is dressing or showering.

Regarding the "meeting outside of CAP" - if the parent has been notified and has given approval, why is a third party required?


Lastly, were parents of Cadets asked to help develop these proposed changes, or will any be consulted prior to adoption?

Good post!

Little more tinder for the fire here, two samples

1.  I take cadet submissions for things like armstrong essays, and staff duty analysis, (and staff work, like CAC and activity planning) in google docs.  Markup with comments so they can revise, until it's all cleaned up.  That communication is now illegit // pending sharing in people on the doc, although the people sharing in would need to be google subscribers, just another hoop to jump through.

2.  A cadet at my squadron who works on the squadron just gchatted me a question about javascript.  I guess that in the future that sort of thing won't be allowed.

3 (bonus)  Sorry cadets, no more captalk for you.  You could be being groomed right here.  Nevermind the PM's (omg)  See ya.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 19, 2013, 10:06:27 PM
they ignored their "spidey sense" because the "CC said it was ok".

The common excuse.  Of course, it's also the common answer here, even when regs are clear on a given topic.  "Just ask your CC". 

Thinking about the social media aspect of this, I checked the TOS for Facebook.

Emphasis mine.

QuoteRegistration and Account Security

Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way. Here are some commitments you make to us relating to registering and maintaining the security of your account:
You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.
You will not create more than one personal account.
If we disable your account, you will not create another one without our permission.
You will not use your personal timeline primarily for your own commercial gain, and will use a Facebook Page for such purposes.
You will not use Facebook if you are under 13.
You will not use Facebook if you are a convicted sex offender.
You will keep your contact information accurate and up-to-date.
You will not share your password (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.
You will not transfer your account (including any Page or application you administer) to anyone without first getting our written permission.
If you select a username or similar identifier for your account or Page, we reserve the right to remove or reclaim it if we believe it is appropriate (such as when a trademark owner complains about a username that does not closely relate to a user's actual name).

I think requiring members to set up separate, "professional" accounts, for CAP purposes, is a violation of the TOS of most social media sites. I very well may be wrong, but it is worth noting.

I have it on good authority that the social media policies in the current draft have been reworked to be a little less specific, which would eliminate this conflict.

Quote from: NIN on September 27, 2013, 03:35:02 PM
I have it on good authority that the social media policies in the current draft have been reworked to be a little less specific, which would eliminate this conflict.

That said, there's a way to make a "personality" account (i.e. Capt Smith), as opposed to a user account (John Smith).

Quote from: coudano on August 18, 2013, 03:26:57 AM
additionally, there is no guarantee, whatsoever ,that "a parent" being used as a supplemental chaperone, isn't a boundary violating perv, themselves...

Just because you are the parent of a cadet doesn't mean you aren't a perv.

this was one of the items that really stood out to me while reading the reg as well....

So you have to watch the watcher as well...

mk

I want to thank everyone for the excellent feedback, both here and on the CP website.  That's exactly why we put it out for public comment -- to get additional eyes on the proposal and bring up points that neither our experts or we had fully considered.

As you may recall, the first draft was developed working closely with parents, squadron level CP officers, as well as cadets.  This feedback only makes it better.

Based on the feedback, we have modified the portions relating to "email copying," parental visitation and permissions, social media, as well as a few others.  We are putting the final touches on the revision, and hope to have it posted for additional comments soon.

Again, we sincerely appreciate the feedback.  When we work as a team, the resulting policy is better and infinitely more practical.

Ned Lee
Cadt Program Enthusiast

Will the draft have the changes from the last draft annotated the same as if it were a revision to a published item?

One thing I haven't noticed in this discussion so far is the impact on parents.

3-5(b) Adult members will not meet with cadets outside of official CAP activities without the prior notification and approval of the cadet's parent. If in-person contact is necessary, a third person must be present, and the meeting must take place in a public space.

In this case, if my son invites a friend that he met at CAP over for the weekend, I have to say no or be in violation.  It wouldn't be a prior relationship because they met at CAP.  They could be friends for two years, but they still met at CAP.  Even worse, if my younger son isn't there but my older son (who isn't a member anymore) invites a friend who is a cadet over we wouldn't have three members.  Heaven forbid that my son leave the room and leave me alone with the cadet - I'd need to stop whatever I was doing and go into another room or leave my house (which would then be another violation by leaving them unsupervised)!

What it means for parents is that their children are no longer allowed to have CAP friends over.  Alternatively, we resign from CAP until our children are out of the house.  This is bad.  Even if my kids aren't members anymore, they met many of their friends at CAP and many are still cadets.  To expect a 12-year-old not to develop the majority of their friendships through CAP is unrealistic.  To expect parents to be mindful of CPP rules for playdates and sleepovers is ridiculous.

Re-read the paragraph. A cadet inviting a cadet over is fine. Cadets meeting and being friends outside of CAP is fine, no one is saying otherwise. Cadets and non-member teenagers are outside the scope of the regulation.

The bulk of this regulation is dealing specifically with senior member-cadet contact and relationships, with some additional rules surrounding 18+ cadets.

One problem I see is that the unit CC is left out of the situation. Often he/she can see that while the regulation may be "bent" or misunderstood it's not a CPP violation. This applies mainly to those Boarderline cases. I also see that the 3 person rule is violated in the example of a groundteam. If there is a 4 person ground team, and one cadet is injured, two people go for help leaving one person with the injured.

Quote from: BillB on September 29, 2013, 01:01:33 PMI also see that the 3 person rule is violated in the example of a groundteam. If there is a 4 person ground team, and one cadet is injured, two people go for help leaving one person with the injured.

Well, how many times does a member of an exactly 4-person ground team become injured and the team needs to split up? It's a case that is allowed for but it's a relatively rare scenario.

Again, the regulation isn't meant to prescribe specific guidance on 100% of the cases CAP members will ever encounter. It's meant to provide general principles and standards of practice, and there is language in there that allows people on the scene (or engaged in activity planning) to deviate from those standards as situations warrant.

It's like when cadets ask for a list of punishments they're not allowed to doll out. "Tell me what's not hazing". It doesn't work that way. It's more like "here are the principles, here is the intent, here are the bright line rules, and we expect that you'll use sound judgment to fill in the rest. In case your judgment falters, we've got procedures to teach and to follow-up on those, too".

---

My concerns with the proposed changes are that (1) it's a lot of new material to digest at once, and (2) it's going to scare people off of cadet programs. They're going to fear that the reg is saying things it's not saying, or they're going to misinterpret things and, combined with CAP's FUD*-based safety culture and risk averseness, will decide not to run activities that would otherwise benefit cadets.

I'm waiting for the E-mail that says "cadets aren't allowed at the SAREX because the new CPP says we need to have three seniors supervising each one", or some such nonsense. Correcting those myths and misconceptions is going to be a full-time job for DCPs.


* FUD = fear, uncertainty, doubt

Quote from: dwb on September 29, 2013, 11:16:23 AM
Re-read the paragraph. A cadet inviting a cadet over is fine. Cadets meeting and being friends outside of CAP is fine, no one is saying otherwise. Cadets and non-member teenagers are outside the scope of the regulation.

The bulk of this regulation is dealing specifically with senior member-cadet contact and relationships, with some additional rules surrounding 18+ cadets.

It clearly states that a senior member may not have contact with a cadet outside of a meeting without A) parental consent (not an issue) and B) must occur in public.  If a cadet is in my house, there will be contact outside of those guidelines.  Not just a little outside the guidelines but significantly and blatantly so.

Quote from: Elioron on September 29, 2013, 02:11:08 PM

Quote from: dwb on September 29, 2013, 11:16:23 AM
Re-read the paragraph. A cadet inviting a cadet over is fine. Cadets meeting and being friends outside of CAP is fine, no one is saying otherwise. Cadets and non-member teenagers are outside the scope of the regulation.

The bulk of this regulation is dealing specifically with senior member-cadet contact and relationships, with some additional rules surrounding 18+ cadets.

It clearly states that a senior member may not have contact with a cadet outside of a meeting without A) parental consent (not an issue) and B) must occur in public.  If a cadet is in my house, there will be contact outside of those guidelines.  Not just a little outside the guidelines but significantly and blatantly so.

The cadet is not there for you.

One of the most difficult aspects of developing policies in this area is that we all recognize that some relationships may pre-date CAP memberships, and/ or be based on some other kind of relationship entirely.  And that this happens with even greater frequency in smaller communities.

It is obviously ineffective  for CAP to have a policy that would require a senior who happens to be a public school teacher to expel a student from his class just because the student is also a cadet in the same unit.  Or require a chaplain to excommunicate every cadet who happens to be a member of her church.

Or require a senior to leave a baseball game or a movie because a cadet bought a ticket.

We get that.  Honestly, we do.

Take a look at the wording in the revised draft and let us know if we have addressed your concerns.  We hope to have it out for your comments in the next week or two.

And yes, I think it will have the changes highlighted and provide some rationale for both things we have changed and things we are not yet convinced that we should change.

Ned Lee
CP Enthusiast

Just to add to the pot, simply because it is legally possible and could occur, what if there is a senior member who is 21 married to someone who is 17 -- which is perfectly legal in a handful of states -- and the 17-year old joins CAP as a cadet. I know CAP regs say "Marriage after age 18" is a reason to terminate cadet membership, but does that mean getting married after age 18, or simply being in the married status? Plus how would it figure into the new CPPT?

Also, with this bit here:

Quotef. Semi-Private Discussions. Adult leaders who need to mentor or counsel cadets individually during official activities should do so in the presence of a third person when reasonably possible. Alternatively, one-on one meetings are permitted if conducted in a semi-open setting (ie: office door kept ajar, or conversing away from, but in sight of, the group, or other circumstances).

what about the provision that Chaplains can be alone with Cadets for counseling? Is that being done away with? Are they going to have to come under the semi-private rule now?

..at the dawn of age 18, they need to turn senior member. The option to continue to 21 is not available to them, as a cadet.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 29, 2013, 03:57:37 PM
The cadet is not there for you.

The same could be said about a SM and cadet that work together - still a violation.

Just to be clear, I understand that there isn't any intent to put parents and other well-meaning members in jeopardy, but the biggest issue with most things are the unintended consequences.  Part of having public discourse is to expose these possible consequences.

Quote from: Elioron on September 29, 2013, 07:49:27 PM
The same could be said about a SM and cadet that work together - still a violation.

If I had a business that hired teenagers, our cadets would be the type I'd want to hire.

Quote from: Elioron on September 29, 2013, 07:49:27 PMJust to be clear, I understand that there isn't any intent to put parents and other well-meaning members in jeopardy, but the biggest issue with most things are the unintended consequences.  Part of having public discourse is to expose these possible consequences.

Based on Ned's post above, I assume your specific concern is covered in the next draft, which sounds like it will be available soon. Which, like you said, is why we have public discourse on draft changes of this significance.

Quote from: dwb on September 29, 2013, 08:24:25 PM
Based on Ned's post above, I assume your specific concern is covered in the next draft, which sounds like it will be available soon.

I hope so.  The last revision cleared up a lot of potential problems.

Quote from: phirons on September 29, 2013, 08:12:34 PM
If I had a business that hired teenagers, our cadets would be the type I'd want to hire.

That is the consensus of several business people I know - in and out of CAP.  It is one of the things they cleaned up in the August draft.  Instead of an absolute prohibition for cadets to work for Seniors it is now allowed with parental permission.  The part that needs to be clarified is working with them, which is contact outside of meetings.  It could be in a coworker relationship or a superior/subordinate relationship (and realistically either could be superior).

I think the wording is what's difficult.  I think the same goal can be reached with specific exemptions.

3-5(b)

• Except in the standard course of employment (assuming employment was gained IAW 3-5c)
• Upon chance meetings in a public venue, common courtesy is expected and should not be considered contact for the purposes of this regulation.
• Instances where the Cadet Member is visiting a person or persons of whom the Senior Member is the parent or otherwise acting guardian shall be exempt.

Quote from: Brad on September 29, 2013, 05:17:08 PMAlso, with this bit here:

Quotef. Semi-Private Discussions. Adult leaders who need to mentor or counsel cadets individually during official activities should do so in the presence of a third person when reasonably possible. Alternatively, one-on one meetings are permitted if conducted in a semi-open setting (ie: office door kept ajar, or conversing away from, but in sight of, the group, or other circumstances).

what about the provision that Chaplains can be alone with Cadets for counseling? Is that being done away with? Are they going to have to come under the semi-private rule now?

Not done away with.....they have to in a room with the door open.