New CPP Codified - Updated 52-10

[Майор Хаткевич]

Well, you know, nobody wants to work any more.  They just file frivolous law suits and the judges instead of saying it's got no merit and throwing it out allows it.  Then they allow these ridiculous penalties like the gal that was awarded a million dollars for spilling her hot coffee in her own lap because the coffee was too hot.  Duh, what do you think lady, it's coffee.  "Caution, hot coffee might be hot"

I agree wholeheartedly that Tort Reform is needed in this country, and I use the "Coffee Lady" example myself as a handy reference,
but to be fair to the facts, when you read the details of the case, McD's response and record of past injuries, as well as their response to
settlement offers, the issues aren't as black and white as the media has made it out to be.

Yes and no. IIRC, she had the cup in her lap, between her thighs? Maybe she should have sued the car company for lack of cupholders.

[SamFranklin]

[A SM may not drive a cadet to a meeting alone.]

That is just blasted idiotic. Great example of over-regulation in an attempt to avoid the appearance of improper behavior. If Captain Pervystache is intent on doing immoral things with Cadet Puresnow, rules like this aren't a deterrent.

Imagine that you're one of the bad guys. You want to get a kid alone so you can soften him up and eventually abuse him. How are you going to do that? You volunteer to coach baseball, join Scouts, or join CAP. Then you look for a kid who is easy to isolate. You find one. He needs a ride and is in a single family home. So then you step forward, hey, I drive right by your house I can bring you to the meeting, you say. Mom and kid and squadron cheer you because you're so awesome. This great reputation you've built for yourself will make it even less likely that anyone will realize what your true motivations are.

Not having two deep leadership is what makes it real easy for bad guys to do bad things. The two deep rule is absolutely essential. I bet we can solve this kid's transportation problem without making him an easy target.

There's a lot of overlap between what a good, generous person does to assist his fellow man and what a criminal does to soften up a victim. 99% of the time, we're dealing with the good guys, but 1% of the time the free ride to CAP, special favors, etc., is part of a clever ploy to hurt a kid. Sorry, that's just the way the world is.

[SamFranklin]

Yes and no. IIRC, she had the cup in her lap, between her thighs? Maybe she should have sued the car company for lack of cupholders.

Off Topic, but this is CAP Talk and it always goes thusly....   Go watch the first fifteen minutes of "Hot Coffee."  Pay attention to the juror who explains they did believe Stella Liebeck, though parked and seated in the passenger seat, should have been a bit more careful with the coffee to the point that she deserved twenty percent of the fault for the spill, but McDonald's deserved eighty percent of the blame for "willful, reckless, wanton conduct."  Read that phrase again -- willful, reckless, wanton. In the civilized world, if you harm someone, the rest of us will, through our social compact and court system, compel you to make that person whole again. She sued McDonald's because McD's harmed her willfully, not General Motors. Heaven forbid the same happen to you, but if it does, I bet you'll call an attorney, and you'll be right to do so.

[Ned]

Well, you know, nobody wants to work any more.  They just file frivolous law suits and the judges instead of saying it's got no merit and throwing it out allows it.  Then they allow these ridiculous penalties like the gal that was awarded a million dollars for spilling her hot coffee in her own lap because the coffee was too hot.  Duh, what do you think lady, it's coffee.  "Caution, hot coffee might be hot"
[ . . .] End rant.

Slight off topic response:

It is worth remembering that the actual facts of the McDonald's coffee case are not what most of us "remember" them to be.

79 year-old Stella Liebeck did not simply "spill her coffee in her lap," but actually sustained third degree (full skin thickness) burns over six per cent of her body, including her genital and perineal areas and was hospitalized for eight days while she received skin grafts.  She was the passenger in a stationary vehicle when the coffee spilled on her lap.

McDonalds admitted serving their coffee at a temperature of 185 degrees when most restaurants (and home users) serve it at 130 - 145 degrees.  McDonalds also admitted that they knew that the product was not fit for human consumption at the time they put it into the cup since it would of course severly burn the lips and mouth of anyone who drank it before it had time to cool. 

Ordinary jurors from the community (not a judge, BTW) ordered McDonalds to pay $200,000 in compensatory damages and were so outraged at McDonald's indifference to safety, they also ordered 2.7 million in punitive damages (which represented about two days worth of McDonalds' coffee sales.)

The case was later settled by the parties in a confidential agreement for a lesser amount.


Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[Майор Хаткевич]

There is that as well, but back on topic. I'm not "picking" on Ned, but as one of the people who helped develop the policy, perhaps such situations came up. What's the best course of action in the case of a cadet who's got both working parents, unable to get him to meetings (by the way, this was a change from when he joined, so life circumstances had changed). Obviously those of us in the CP realm would hate to loose a cadet simply because his family financial circumstances force him into a position of lacking a ride. The "best" in my opinion option is for him to recruit a friend or two, and do carpool with one of the other cadets parents taking him and their child TO the meeting, while his parents taking them home FROM the meetings. I had a similar arrangement with the cadet who recruited me. From the CPP perspective, I'm sure CAP is happy, because it's a non-SM adult, but there are two cadets present. From a risk to the child, I'd say the risk is roughly the same (maybe a bit less) than a lone SM driving him. After all, just because someone is a parent, doesn't mean they can't also be a predator.

A double up of SMs may also warrant a better outcome, but at this time there is only one SM in the general vicinity, and I know personally, I like to drive alone, listen to my music, relax, etc, and it would be a great inconvenience to force two SMs  to drive together for one cadet (albeit I know most of us WOULD if that was the only way to get a cadet to participate).

So any thoughts on what to do in the short term? Public transportation is out, we're not in metro area with an infrastructure for that.

[SamFranklin]

The "best" in my opinion option is for him to recruit a friend or two, and do carpool with one of the other cadets parents taking him and their child TO the meeting, while his parents taking them home FROM the meetings. I had a similar arrangement with the cadet who recruited me. From the CPP perspective, I'm sure CAP is happy, because it's a non-SM adult, but there are two cadets present. From a risk to the child, I'd say the risk is roughly the same (maybe a bit less) than a lone SM driving him. After all, just because someone is a parent, doesn't mean they can't also be a predator.

I agree, that's a good solution. And it's permitted by the reg. You need have only 3 persons in the vehicle, one senior and two cadets is okay. 

[lordmonar]

There is that as well, but back on topic. I'm not "picking" on Ned, but as one of the people who helped develop the policy, perhaps such situations came up. What's the best course of action in the case of a cadet who's got both working parents, unable to get him to meetings (by the way, this was a change from when he joined, so life circumstances had changed). Obviously those of us in the CP realm would hate to loose a cadet simply because his family financial circumstances force him into a position of lacking a ride. The "best" in my opinion option is for him to recruit a friend or two, and do carpool with one of the other cadets parents taking him and their child TO the meeting, while his parents taking them home FROM the meetings. I had a similar arrangement with the cadet who recruited me. From the CPP perspective, I'm sure CAP is happy, because it's a non-SM adult, but there are two cadets present. From a risk to the child, I'd say the risk is roughly the same (maybe a bit less) than a lone SM driving him. After all, just because someone is a parent, doesn't mean they can't also be a predator.

A double up of SMs may also warrant a better outcome, but at this time there is only one SM in the general vicinity, and I know personally, I like to drive alone, listen to my music, relax, etc, and it would be a great inconvenience to force two SMs  to drive together for one cadet (albeit I know most of us WOULD if that was the only way to get a cadet to participate).

So any thoughts on what to do in the short term? Public transportation is out, we're not in metro area with an infrastructure for that.

Build an impossible situation and you get an impossible answer.

Bottom line is.....if the cadet can't get to CAP.....he can't get to CAP.

Yes it sucks....but that is the way it's got to be.   No alone time.  If you try to make it work, with in the regs, but can't....you can't.

[Grumpy]

I agree that if it's blatantly a willful act then sue.  But some of these ridiculous settlements and things.  Why work for a living when you can sue?  It's one reason why everybody is paranoid about doing something good like taking a kid to a CAP meeting.  I know there are perverts out there.  But what do you do?  Cancel everything for the majority because of the act of a few?  Tough question, tough decision.  I'm glad I'm not the one to try to solve it it.

God bless you Ned and thanks for everything you do for us.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Here's a few more scenarios to address, because I feel they are a bit murky:


What about a cadet driving a cadet how about an 17 or 18 year old cadet driving a 12 year old cadet?
What if the 12 year old is female and the driver is male?


18 year old cadets get CPP training akin to SMs, and we do attempt separation for overnight accommodations based on age, but what about rides?

[NIN]

Not for nothing whatsoever, but I bet the only actual lawyer in the room when the new CPP was being drafted was the GC. And frankly I'd want the GC in the room. The rest of the folks were cadet programs people

I wasn't on the ground floor of that regulation, but I got an opportunity to review it before it went wider.

So let's not say it was written by lawyers and headquarters types. It was written by people who give a crap about the cadet program.

[Ned]

  It's one reason why everybody is paranoid about doing something good like taking a kid to a CAP meeting.  I know there are perverts out there.  But what do you do?  Cancel everything for the majority because of the act of a few? 

Well, that's the issue, isn't it?

We know that our terrific cadet program is a great resource for our cadets.  Although there are no statistically-validated double blind studies to prove it, I suspect we help almost all of our cadets at least a little.  We help some cadets a great deal.  (That was certainly true for me.  CAP came to me at critical time in my life -- which would likely have taken a different direction without the training, support, and mentoring by outstanding volunteers like yourself.)

But it is also undoubtedly true that some cadets are damaged by our program.  Over the years, a few have been severly injured and even killed during CAP activities, despite our best efforts.  Some have been damaged psychologically by abuse or hazing at the hands of undertrained volunteers.

And sadly, some have even been virtually destroyed after being groomed and subsequently molested by the leaders that they and their parents had trusted.

All of us here believe that -- on balance -- we do far more good than harm.  Or we wouldn't be here. 

The hard part is trying to craft rules and poliicies that minimize the frequency and severity of the bad things that can happen, while preserving the beneficial effects of our program.  Reasonable minds can and do differ about the specifics of how we go about attempting to protect our cadets, but I am confident that we all agree that at least some rules and policies are necessary.  And I suspect we also agree that any policy should be reviewed from time to time and revised as necessary.

[Eclipse]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/21/justice/new-york-child-porn-bust/index.html
(Be warned, there are some pretty serious WTF allegations in this story.)

"New York (CNN) -- They are people children are supposed to trust: A New York Police Department officer, a Fire Department of New York paramedic,
a rabbi and a scoutmaster were among more than 70 people arrested in a major child porn bust, authorities said Wednesday...

..."The backgrounds of many of the individuals ... is shocking," Hayes said. "These defendants come from all walks of life ... This operation puts the lie to the classic stereotypical profile that child predators are nothing more than unemployed drifters. Many of the defendants are, in fact, well-educated and successful in private and professional lives. They work as registered nurses, paramedics, caretakers for mentally ill adults, computer programers and architects...."

While there's probably plenty of hindsight to go around on this, the bottom line is that this is
the world in which CAP must function.

The rules are a hassle, some need to be adjusted, but until we can find a way to stop this
stuff, we have to live with it.  It also underlines why it is so important to make sure our rules,
regs, and processes are meaningful and reasonable, because as this thread indicates,
people will generally be inclined to find the path of least resistance, especially when something
seems unreasonable or a waste of time.  This kind of thing can actually make the situation less safe,
because the assumption of compliance leads to complacency.

Those who would never harm a child have a right to be indignant, but in the presence of
these kinds of stories, not to be willfully disobedient or allow inappropriate behavior and actions
to continue through omission (i.e. looking the other way for expedience's sake).

With the choice being Scylla and Charybdis, my personal ORM thinks it's better to not have a cadet
participate, then to put one at risk for expedience's sake only to find later he was harmed.

This planet was so much better before it was inhabited...

[Garibaldi]

I just discovered that the revision to the 52-10 future dated to October has been rescinded. Is there a reason? Or is it just not available yet?

[dwb]

The effective date of the reg is now Apr 18, rather than taking effect Oct 1.

[coudano]

I just discovered that the revision to the 52-10 future dated to October has been rescinded. Is there a reason? Or is it just not available yet?

um the current version is effective 18 Apr 2014,
but there are a couple of requirements in it that are waived until 1 October 2014.

[Garibaldi]

I just discovered that the revision to the 52-10 future dated to October has been rescinded. Is there a reason? Or is it just not available yet?

um the current version is effective 18 Apr 2014,
but there are a couple of requirements in it that are waived until 1 October 2014.

OK, just confused about the dates.

[dwb]

It's not just you. The rollout was, shall we say, suboptimal.

[Grumpy]

They seem to be putting the cart before the horse more and more.  Then when you email them asking questions you don't get an answer.

[321EOD]

As the

[321EOD]

Something else to bring up from my last post... for a while when we were operating with only two female CP officers, we recruited a few 'token male seniors' to fill in for overnight activities and the like.  We complained about not being able to find a male senior, in a sea of dads and male seniors on the 'senior side' of the squadron to come help out with the cadets.

Part of the problem (not the whole problem, but a good chunk of it) was with our attitude in recruiting.  When you think of someone as a warm body filling in a place in your organization (for most of you, that mystical female CP officer), and not as a full-fledged member of your organization from the get-go, you will NEVER succeed in recruiting the people you want/need.  Once we started looking for specific positions to fill (small, low-time commitment positions), with a specific purpose, we started getting more seniors of both genders to join.  When recruiting CSMs, we asked for two activities a year, and for all CSMs to be able to drive the CAP vehicles (once we got them). 

Give people something specific to do and contribute, and you will be surprised at the results.  Giving the non-answer of "whatever you can give" with nothing specific is seen on the outside as a lame cop-out, and a sign of a disorganized unit. 

Also, invite new senior members, even ones you just recruited to your CP staff meetings.  Don't make the meeting mandatory, but do invite them as soon as you can.  Treating them like they are part of the team from the get-go will help significantly with your retention, and getting your new seniors fully involved in the unit.  As a female, this is one of the best things you can do for your new female CP officer recruits.  Turning away a new recruit from 'staff meetings' of a staff that she is there to join is one of the quickest ways to get her to walk away.

As the "token male" referred to in this post I wholeheartedly agree with Pingree's comments. Once you are welcomed into the program and given some guidance, support and direction you can quite easily get HOOKED! I did!.... and it was one of the most rewarding experiences I've ever had!