Enhanced Cadet Protection Policy for '14

[Woodsy]

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. 

[NCRblues]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Eclipse]

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

[coudano]

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?

[NCRblues]

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...

[Eclipse]

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.

[coudano]

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.

[Esraem]

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.

[SunDog]

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!

[Майор Хаткевич]

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.

[PA Guy]

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.

[Eclipse]

It 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

[A.Member]

It 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.

[Grumpy]

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.

[coudano]

It 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.

[a2capt]

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?

[Eclipse]

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

RIF.

[a2capt]

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.

[Майор Хаткевич]

The no female thing is specifically addressed.