Meeting cadets online

[CAPCom]

Hello - am trying to find info on policy for meeting with cadets online.  What I've seen happen at my squadron is where a senior member believes they are covered for two-deep if they record their time online with a cadet when no other senior member is present.  Personally, this seems like a bad idea (recordings can fail and/or be erased) but my gut instinct tells me it's inappropriate and against the two-deep policy.  At the very least, it seems a notification/invitation link should be sent to another senior member so there is awareness and an electronic log of when such meetings occur.  If anyone can steer me to a CAPR on this, I'd be grateful.  TIA.

[Ned]

Take a look at para 2.11.12 of CAPR 60-2 (CPP.). Which talks about communicating with cadets electronically outside of activities.  There does not appear to be anything that allows recording as a substitute for having a third party in the conversation.

Ned Lee
National Cadet Program Manager

[Eclipse]

What I've seen happen at my squadron is where a senior member believes they are covered for two-deep if they record their time online with a cadet when no other senior member is present.

Yeah, no.

The regs are clear on these points and don't in any way account for recordings as a remediation.

See page 17 of CAPR 60-2:
https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/CAPR_602_November_2019_BCDB57FCF528F.pdf

"2.11.2. Closed Media. Texting, private messaging, webcams, and similar forms of electronic communication that third parties cannot easily monitor are permitted only for very brief messages of an official
nature. Adult leaders may not engage in lengthy one-on-one telephonic conversations with a cadet who is
not a family member. A third party must be on the line for any conversation lasting over a few minutes."

I would also argue that while "allowed", even a few minutes is not a best practice, for a number of reasons.

My advice would be to get higher HQ clarification on this immediately in an effort to get them to knock it off.

Edit: Ned beat me to it.

[CAPCom]

Thank you Eclipse and Ned.

While to me what you both pointed out in the regulations is crystal clear, obviously it's not so clear to some.  A bright line clarification direct from NHQ would be optimal and seems like it is needed (incredibly).

Online/webcam meetings and tutoring/assistance/testing without having a second senior member right there (not a half-listening or non-listening parent in the room or same home with the cadet), seems like a disaster waiting to happen.  There are so many possibilities for a legal issue scenario, I don't even want to contemplate it.  Makes my head hurt.

[TheSkyHornet]

I guess I'm on the side that doesn't feel like clarification is necessary here.

Ask yourself:
Is this a situation where we are having a brief conversation about official business? What is the nature of that business? Why was it permissible to talk briefly via web comms instead of looping in others?

Let's be very clear here, everyone: Distinguish best practice from compliance.

Is it permissible and compliant to email a cadet with just you (a senior) and a cadet as the sole participants of that email? Yes, it is.


An example of when it's compliant:
A cadet submits an electronic application for an activity. You reply to that cadet directly, "Application received. Standby for more information." You reach out to the cadet the following week and copy in others to provide a summary of forms needed to be turned in and the next step in the activity process.

An example of when it's not compliant:
A cadet emails you asking if he can pick up some uniform items at the next meeting. You reply back asking what they need. The cadet replies saying he needs a new insignia and an ABU belt, but he's not sure what his size is. You tell him to measure his waist and provide you with his size so you can pull a belt out before the meeting. He replies back... --- You see where this is going. This has become a conversation with that cadet by email. It's no longer brief, and it's getting out of any reason why you couldn't copy in someone else.


I had an email thread going yesterday with three senior members and five cadets. One of the seniors emailed about an issue with a schedule update. The main recipient of the email replied back saying he would fix the issue immediately. I chimed in saying that there's a misunderstanding of the instructions and explained that we accidently crossed information from two separate staff meetings (i.e., wrong recipient). The cadet emailed me back privately and said "Thank you for clarifying. I thought I missed information." I replied back "No worries. It happens." --- There: closure. It's over. Move on. Don't start a casual conversation at that point.

As for one-on-one meetings, where there is active engagement; I think you really need to treat that like any other in-person meeting. The technological aspect makes it easy to forgot what the policy is in the moment. But treat computers just like you would as if it's an in-person meeting.

We hold staff meetings quite often online. I've had it where I join a call, and a cadet and senior were on that call already for a few minutes before I came in as the third participant. I'm not going to make an issue of it unless something leads me to believe that these individuals were on that call an hour beforehand chatting with each other. If that's the case, then I would wonder why they didn't just do it privately (not that it's permitted, but my "if you're trying to be sneaky, you're doing a bad job at it" questionnaire going off). Sometimes after the call, you go to log off, and someone says, "Sir, real quick, I have a question..." Okay, let's hear it. If it's a lengthy issue that can't be resolved with a 10 second response, I'll say "Send me an email, copy in so-and-so. I'll get back to you."


To sum up:
No, it's not really appropriate or even compliant to meet one-on-one, period; the record of it makes no difference. If it's not what you would call a brief encounter for official business, then there's no reason to execute that practice. If it's pre-planned, whether brief or not, then it wasn't really necessary to be conducted in that fashion.

Can we also stop treating every Cadet Protection Program foul-up as a crucifiable situation? Just issue the reminder and monitor for correction.

[CAPCom]

Sky Hornet - While I agree that too many times perceived vios of CPP are seen as something "crucifiable" (to borrow your terminology), we live in a very litigious world and as we know with other groups involving minors overseen by adults, what can result from even simple misunderstandings can end up devastating to people's lives.  From home life, to jobs, to their future in CAP (or whatever group they are affiliated with).

The particular scenario I'm thinking of is a senior member mentoring cadets, prepping them for testing, getting them to their goal points to achieve promotion, etc. that has been done online in a webcam/Zoom/Google Meets-type environment.  When questioned whether or not that was within regulations, the explanation I got was that it was fine because... recording. 

While I don't think anything "wrong" has happened, that cadets are being abused or anything like that, I do think it's a door opened to a claim that something did happen.  Kids often perceive things different from reality - often times due to naivete, other times due to a misunderstanding.  Hence, my reason for seeking clarification on the regulation for electronic communication.  I knew instinctively that what I was being told by the senior member was likely wrong, but because I trusted their judgement and reading of the regulations, I didn't question it further.  They've been in CAP for much longer than I.

Now that I know differently, I am in a position to address it.  I wish I didn't have to, but I DO have to.  And we need to make sure what's been happening stops immediately. 

CPP and two senior members being present is no joke and should never be taken lightly.  Like I said, we live in a time where a nothing can quickly and easily be turned into a something.

[TheSkyHornet]

I'm absolutely tracking on what you're saying.

In the case you're referring to, I think it's been said enough times above that it's not appropriate in our operating environment, and it's not compliant with our regulations.

That said, though, there's nothing here that says "I need to make sure this cadet isn't being abused!" And I understand that nobody has alluded to that. But I've been around enough of these conversations and seen enough CPP violations to hear people get overzealous and act as if that's the case.

I saw a senior once walk a cadet to the bathroom because the cadet had to go potty at Encampment, among several others that afternoon, and another senior treated it like she was molesting the cadets. It was insane how they reacted, and they went around Encampment telling everyone about it. That should be a simple, "Hey, just wanting to let you know that you need to make sure that there is another senior with you, or have two cadets go at a time. But we really have to watch the one-on-one stuff, okay?"

For every case of wrongdoing, there are countless "no ill intended" situations where compliance was violated out of nothing more than just not paying attention and not thinking much of it. Let's issue reminders, not reprimands. Nobody needs to lose rank, be kicked out, or stricken from interacting with cadets over this.

Just talk with the senior and explain that they need to be doing it a different way, and talk with the commander and explain that you had that chat.

It's really not a life or death situation here.

[CAPCom]

I agree with you.  I hope you knew that from my previous response.  Yes, reminders rather than reprimands.  But no sweeping under the rug, either, if the reprimand is appropriate.  Honestly, I think that people are just scared it could happen to them, that they might be found culpable to some degree (possibly not following a true instinct something is wrong and they would be blamed for not following the mandatory reporter law), and so on.  Further, those who jump the gun and accuse a member of a cadet protection vio when it's not warranted need to be dealt with with a reprimand, in my opinion.  That kind of thing can ruin a person's life.  I've seen it happen a few times in my profession, even when it was discovered that the accusations were phony.

[Jester]

My immediate answer is no, because recordings can be deleted, you can forget to push the record button, etc.  I'd also question some issues with providing said recording ("you want something off my personal computer?  Got a warrant?").

I do think that given our current operating environment and I doubt this method of communication is going away, this needs to be specifically addressed by NHQ with a bright line rule.

If we felt the need to specifically say in 60-2 that seniors sexting cadets was unacceptable behavior, surely we can agree that clarifying this virtual meeting thing is reasonable.

[CAPCom]

Yes, 100% agree that it needs to be addressed by NHQ ASAP with an addendum/revision to 60-2.  If the tribal knowledge is wrong (which, in my squadron, it obviously is), then it's likely to spread and may have been gotten from another squadron with the same incorrect belief.  It's one thing to violate a regulation you think you understand but really don't.  It's another to violate a regulation that's been updated with clear verbiage which leaves no possibility for misunderstanding or the tribal knowledge spin.  And I doubt we are the only squadron in CAP that thinks online meetings with only one senior member present is acceptable as long as recording is happening or a parent is in the same house as the cadet at the time the meeting takes place.  Online environments lack the ability to control who else is in the room or not in the room.  Schools have recognized this for a year since the shutdowns began and bright line policies on providing online services for students were developed within a week or two following schools being physically closed.  It happened in part because of the potential for abuse and/or the possibility of parents/students becoming sue-happy.  Prevention is always better than having to provide a cure after the fact.  My hope is that someone from NHQ sees this thread and gets on making the change.

[Eclipse]

Sadly, no matter how bright the line is, you will always have people who
put on sunglasses and step over it.

In this case I can't imagine how anyone discussing the issue would say anything
other then "my bad" and never do it again, but there you go...

[Ned]

Hey, I am the NHQ CP Team member most directly responsible for CPP doctrine.  And (re)looking at the reg, I'm not sure I see the ambiguity that has many of you worried.

It pretty clearly says a third party must be on the line for any conversation lasting over a few minutes. 

Nothing suggests, at least to me, that recording is somehow the same as a third party.

But I wrote it, so I may be "too close to it." 

I could pretty easily put something in the Cadet Blog or something similar.

What do y'all think I should do?

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

[CAPCom]

Putting it in the cadet blog would be fine, but it needs to be seen by senior members - squadron commanders especially.  Wing Commanders, Wing Cadet Programs Officers as well.  Maybe Wing Commanders and Wing CPOs could send out reminders via email to squadrons about how important CPP is, that in these "new times" we are living in with solely electronic forms of communication and connection, regulations still need to be followed as written in the CAPRs, etc.

[Dad Jokes]

A bit off topic but along the same subject.  18+yo cadets.  They have to take cadet protection, do they have to have to follow the rules of 3 for talking to other cadets?  Do seniors still have to follow the rule of 3 when talking to the "adult" cadet?  It seems to be a bit of a grey area at least from what we have been able to figure out.  So far we have just decided to error on the side of caution and follow the rules of 3, period, with the 2 cadets we have of age right now.  But everyone I asked about it basically said, you know, no one has asked me that before...

[TheSkyHornet]

Hey, I am the NHQ CP Team member most directly responsible for CPP doctrine.  And (re)looking at the reg, I'm not sure I see the ambiguity that has many of you worried.

It pretty clearly says a third party must be on the line for any conversation lasting over a few minutes. 

Nothing suggests, at least to me, that recording is somehow the same as a third party.

But I wrote it, so I may be "too close to it." 

I could pretty easily put something in the Cadet Blog or something similar.

What do y'all think I should do?

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

I'm with you, Ned. I think it's pretty clear. But I guess not for everyone.

I don't think the Cadet Blog is reviewed enough to provide enough guidance here for those who are trying to interpret the flexibility in the regulation. It's an okay short-term fix, but I think the regulation is best served here to provide that instruction (i.e., "When conducting virtual meetings with cadets, the two-deep rule applies, and the meeting shall be treated as if it were in-person").

[Eclipse]

They have to take cadet protection, do they have to have to follow the rules of 3 for talking to other cadets?

No - they are still "cadet" in NHQ's eyes.

Do seniors still have to follow the rule of 3 when talking to the "adult" cadet? 

Yes.

[Jester]

Maybe push it into basic CPPT and/or TLC Basic as well, at least one of those desperately needs a refresh.

[Eclipse]

Maybe push it into basic CPPT and/or TLC Basic as well, at least one of those desperately needs a refresh.

At some point these classes would be 3 weeks long and people would still find unique ways to
skirt the intent.

CPT is a mindset

[CAPCom]

Yes, but if an issue arises from still doing what they shouldn't do, they can't say they weren't made aware of and didn't know what the regs are.

[TheSkyHornet]

Yes, but if an issue arises from still doing what they shouldn't do, they can't say they weren't made aware of and didn't know what the regs are.

Everything about this statement.

Once you've been informed (especially if it's recorded somewhere), you can't hide from it later and do the "I didn't know."