May 2012 NEC agenda

[keystone102]

Here is the link to the NEC agenda. What do you think of our Legal Officer's proposal for changing the age limit for cadets on page 29.

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/NEC_2012_05_agenda_C5083B47C3324.pdf

[Eclipse]

I think the comments are spot-on and that changes of this nature should be coming from the CP directorate, not the Legal Directorate.

[jeders]

Non-concur with the proposal in the strongest possible terms.

When I first read it I couldn't understand where anyone would come up with this asinine idea, then I saw that it was from the NLO.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

I think the comments are spot-on and that changes of this nature should be coming from the CP directorate, not the Legal Directorate.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I was going to write my own response, but you nailed it.

[Bluelakes 13]

I am surprised that Herrin did not get the opinions of the folks who commented on this BEFORE submitting it to the agenda.

[FlyTiger77]

It is interesting to note that the CP people seem to have first heard of this proposal when it hit the agenda. That is not good staff work, if that is the case.

[arajca]

AI 3 is interesting. If passed, it should make the meetings more productive and prevent some members, those who actually review the agendas, from being blind sided and allow those members to comment, through the chain, to the appropriate NEC/NB member on AIs.

[bflynn]

I'm a little surprised at them downplaying the legal risks of mixing 11-17 year olds with 18-21 year olds with regards to fraternization and child protection laws.  If there was ever an issue, I would think this document and those statements would be evidence to show the CAP disregarded the risk and that would probably increase their liablility in a criminal or civil case. 

But overall, it's not a huge issue.  I hope.

[FW]

$25,000 for (volunteer)National Staff travel from Vangard money.... Oh, yeah take cash from member purchases for National Staff travel.  Good idea...(not). 

The Vangard funds were set up for cadet program/regional training centers.  It was never intended for senior member "perks"; no matter how you spin this.  $25,000 would be better spent to help develop our mission focus, our cadet/school programs, scholarships, cadet o'flights, AE, etc.

[Eeyore]

$25,000 for (volunteer)National Staff travel from Vangard money.... Oh, yeah take cash from member purchases for National Staff travel.  Good idea...(not). 

The Vangard funds were set up for cadet program/regional training centers.  It was never intended for senior member "perks"; no matter how you spin this.  $25,000 would be better spent to help develop our mission focus, our cadet/school programs, scholarships, cadet o'flights, AE, etc.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Spaceman3750]

I'm a little surprised at them downplaying the legal risks of mixing 11-17 year olds with 18-21 year olds with regards to fraternization and child protection laws.  If there was ever an issue, I would think this document and those statements would be evidence to show the CAP disregarded the risk and that would probably increase their liablility in a criminal or civil case. 

But overall, it's not a huge issue.  I hope.

Which legal risks would those be? How are they different than a church that has the high school and middle school youth groups together in the same room?

[jeders]

I'm a little surprised at them downplaying the legal risks of mixing 11-17 year olds with 18-21 year olds with regards to fraternization and child protection laws.  If there was ever an issue, I would think this document and those statements would be evidence to show the CAP disregarded the risk and that would probably increase their liablility in a criminal or civil case. 

But overall, it's not a huge issue.  I hope.

I'm honestly not surprised at all by this post. But let me ask you an honest question, how is mixing 21 year old cadets with 12 (not 11) year old cadets any different from mixing 21 year old seniors with 12 year old cadets?

[johnnyb47]

I'm a little surprised at them downplaying the legal risks of mixing 11-17 year olds with 18-21 year olds with regards to fraternization and child protection laws.  If there was ever an issue, I would think this document and those statements would be evidence to show the CAP disregarded the risk and that would probably increase their liablility in a criminal or civil case. 

But overall, it's not a huge issue.  I hope.

I'm honestly not surprised at all by this post. But let me ask you an honest question, how is mixing 21 year old cadets with 12 (not 11) year old cadets any different from mixing 21 year old seniors with 12 year old cadets?

When a 21 year old transitions from Cadet to Senior member NHQ flips a switch in eServices that makes 12 year olds no longer seem interesting to fraternize with.

[bflynn]

But let me ask you an honest question, how is mixing 21 year old cadets with 12 (not 11) year old cadets any different from mixing 21 year old seniors with 12 year old cadets?

I don't know that there is a difference.  Fraternization between adult members and cadets is prohibited.  I presume that is intended to cover prohibiting an 18 year old adult cadet member from dating a 17 year old minor cadet member, but it's not obvious.  Fraternization between cadets is not explicitly prohibited except as it pertains to the chain of command.

But that wasn't my point - it was that IF there is ever a problem, the logic used in the NEC comments could be harmful to CAP.  If you believe otherwise, please direct your focus to the NEC statements.

[johnnyb47]

But let me ask you an honest question, how is mixing 21 year old cadets with 12 (not 11) year old cadets any different from mixing 21 year old seniors with 12 year old cadets?

I don't know that there is a difference.  Fraternization between adult members and cadets is prohibited.  I presume that is intended to cover prohibiting an 18 year old adult cadet member from dating a 17 year old minor cadet member, but it's not obvious.  Fraternization between cadets is not explicitly prohibited except as it pertains to the chain of command.

But that wasn't my point - it was that IF there is ever a problem, the logic used in the NEC comments could be harmful to CAP.  If you believe otherwise, please direct your focus to the NEC statements.

CAPR 52-10
Para 1.a

If it is illegal then it falls into this category no matter if the 18-21 year old is a cadet or a senior member.

[Ned]

Fraternization between adult members and cadets is prohibited. 

You really need to read the regulations before writing things like this.

Dating and intimate romantic relationships are strictly prohibited between seniors and cadets at any time, regardless of the circumstances.  The age of majority in the local jurisdiction has little, if anything, to do with it. See CAPR 52-16, para 2-3 (b).

Just try to remember that the concepts of "cadethood" and "adulthood" are different things - apples and oranges.  There are 17 year-old seniors who are minors and 18-20 year-old cadets who are adults in their states.  And just to complicate matters, the age of majority is not 18 in all of our wings.

The USAF has cadets ranging from roughly 12 to over 30.  They treat their cadets with respect while subjecting them to necessary discipline and training.  So should we.

[bflynn]

Fraternization between adult members and cadets is prohibited. 

You really need to read the regulations before writing things like this.

Dating and intimate romantic relationships are strictly prohibited between seniors and cadets at any time, regardless of the circumstances.  The age of majority in the local jurisdiction has little, if anything, to do with it. See CAPR 52-16, para 2-3 (b).

Actually, my source was the Cadet Protection Training program student guide - if it is not correct, there's a different problem.  The words were my own, which is why there might be inprecision introduced into them.

And if you're suggesting that age of majority laws have little to do with CAP regulations between adults and minor cadets, then you've hit on exactly my concern with the NEC comments. 

[johnnyb47]

Fraternization between adult members and cadets is prohibited. 

You really need to read the regulations before writing things like this.

Dating and intimate romantic relationships are strictly prohibited between seniors and cadets at any time, regardless of the circumstances.  The age of majority in the local jurisdiction has little, if anything, to do with it. See CAPR 52-16, para 2-3 (b).

Actually, my source was the Cadet Protection Training program student guide - if it is not correct, there's a different problem.  The words were my own, which is why there might be inprecision introduced into them.

And if you're suggesting that age of majority laws have little to do with CAP regulations between adults and minor cadets, then you've hit on exactly my concern with the NEC comments.

Read it again. Specifically the third paragraph on page 10.

Because adults have intrinsic supervisory authority over cadets, adult members will not date or have intimate romantic relationships with cadets at any time, regardless of the circumstances.

[Ned]

Fraternization between adult members and cadets is prohibited. 

You really need to read the regulations before writing things like this.

Dating and intimate romantic relationships are strictly prohibited between seniors and cadets at any time, regardless of the circumstances.  The age of majority in the local jurisdiction has little, if anything, to do with it. See CAPR 52-16, para 2-3 (b).

Actually, my source was the Cadet Protection Training program student guide - if it is not correct, there's a different problem. 

Good catch.  The wording in the CAPP 50-3 does indeed differ from the regulation.  It appears that it was simply copied incorrectly.  We'll get that fixed.  In the meantime, we should remember that regulations should serve as our primary guidance in the event of a conflict.



So, what exactly are your "concerns with the NEC comments?"

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Why does it say that the youngest cadet is 11yrs?

My biggest concern is the new member probation period of six months, with the ability To terminate without cause. This would greatly discourage new members. It could also be construed by the new member that they may be terminated due to a disability or other protected factor. And yes, I understand that it may not be expressed that they an be terminated without cause.