Enhanced Cadet Protection Policy for '14

[Eclipse]

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".

[RiverAux]

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. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

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.

[RogueLeader]

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.

[Grumpy]

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".

[Eclipse]

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.

[NIN]

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..."

[Eclipse]

^ 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.

[a2capt]

This 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. ;-)

[coudano]

This 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.

[NCRblues]

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 

[A.Member]

Nothing like enabling helicopter parents. 

[dwb]

So, 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...

[NCRblues]

So, 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"

[coudano]

/ahem

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

(emphasis added)

[NIN]

^ 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

[Eclipse]

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.

[coudano]

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.

[Майор Хаткевич]

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

3-3. 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.

[RiverAux]

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