Enhanced Cadet Protection Policy for '14

[A.Member]

Ned, here's my $.02. 

1. Social media restrictions.  The only thing certain about social media is that it will morph and change faster than an organization like ours can respond.  (They are inside our OODA loop.)  So rather than get bogged down into specifics about how to set up multiple FaceBook profiles or discussing ever evolving security settings, we tried to law out some rules that will help prevent improper relationships even as the platforms evolve under us.  In my civilian job I spend many, many hours dealing with cases that starter with innocent social media chatter and spun out of control into wildly inappropriate communications.  We are trying to provde commanders, parents, cadets, and CP officers with tools to detect and prevent problems before they develop into acute incidents.

I have a lot of reservations with this one as being very much "baby with the bathwater"; it will shut down all legitimate conversations as well as the miniscule fraction of inappropriate conversations.   I have Cadets message me on Facebook to ask questions about CAP areas that I have expertise in all the time.   I've had Cadets ask for advice on how to approach problems within their unit, ask for recommendation letters for NCSA boards, etc, etc.   

The call for a separate account for purposes of communicating with cadets is unworkable.   Facebook apps on phones and tablets do not support multiple Facebook accounts, and having multiple personal accounts is against Facebook's terms of service.  Effectively, this means that I must unfriend and ignore all cadets or run afoul of either CPP or Facebook's terms of service.   I think the message that this sends to cadets is unhealthy: You are too toxic to communicate with, bye bye.   

2.  Parental visitations.  As some have mentioned, this rule is designed to reassure parents that we do not have "secret meetings" and to reassure them that their cadets are being treated fairly and protected.  It is not meant to allow a parent to hover continuously in the background for extended periods of time.  Based on your feedback, we will play with the wording on that.  However, I am not sure I want to exempt ES completely.  I don't want parents to go tromping through the woods, but I'm not sure I see the harm in letting them see the quarters at a search base if that is important to them.  Perhaps some of you could suggest some language.

"Parents are encouraged to briefly inspect any CAP activity for the purpose of observing the conditions and environment that their Cadet will be participating in.   Parents are reminded, however, that some activities may require permission from the host installation, facility, or other authority to gain access to certain CAP activity locations, and such permission may not be within CAP's control.   Activity Commanders will make reasonable accommodations to escort parents through the activity site when such accommodations due not unduly and adversely affect the accomplishment of the activity or mission in question.   The Commander of the Activity Commander or Incident Commander, as appropriate, shall rule on whether or not such access may be excluded.  Such determination should ideally be made prior to the commencement of the activity or to deployment of mission personnel to the field.   Wing Commanders may issue blanket exemptions via supplement for certain types of activities where it would be universally impractical to permit parental visitations (i.e. military installations, ground team searches, etc)."

This, to my mind, sets the expectations: Parents can inspect the environment (inspections are finite and generally fast; eliminates the never-ending "visit") but cannot expect to do so if they either cannot gain access to the location or if it will impact the safe and effective execution of the activity or mission.  If there's a question, there's a way to resolve it, hopefully ahead of time.   It also allows the Wing Commander to eliminate most challenges where certain circumstances are deemed impractical/impossible.

4. Group emails.  I can only agree that things like wing email reflectors and bulk emails in general present little risk.  We will definitely work on that to focus on "one on one" type emails occurring outside of scheduled activities.  Again, any specific wording suggestions are appreciated.

"Communications disseminated via email reflectors, mass text messages, alert paging systems, or any other mass communication method that meets one or more of the following circumstances are permitted.  Such communications should be of a general nature, and not directed at individual Cadet members.

1. Includes the Commander(s) of one of more echelons of command
2. Includes the parents of all included cadets
3. Includes at least 3 Senior Members"

Again, we welcome your feedback and criticism.  It has always been our plan to allow member comment and input.  And I promise you that it will be carefully considered.

Generally speaking, many of these proposed modifications to CPP seem to me to be overreaching and still will not prohibit the conduct of those who would seek to have inappropriate relationships with Cadets. 

I would like to see an emphasis on training Cadets to recognize and discern what is proper and improper, with clear reporting guidelines for obvious violations and encouragement to discuss any questionable/borderline cases with their parents initially to see if further action is warranted.   For violations, Cadets (and their parents) should have multiple, published reporting options: CC, higher HQ CC, Chaplain, IG, etc so that the most comfortable option may be selected. 

Some of the proposals are good: SMs not in closed rooms with Cadets, not bunking or showering with them.   However, some accommodations might be made for events like Encampment; FLWG has typically bunked the Flight's Tactical Officer in the open bay with the Flight for supervisory/safety reasons.   Language that encourages supervision and safety while prohibiting individuals or small groups from bunking together might be better; I am unsure how I would word it, however.

I'm also not sure that I am comfortable with this:

Adult leaders and cadets will use the showers at separate times when
reasonably possible. Devices that have cameras are prohibited from the
shower areas and barracks area when cadets are dressing."

To my mind, the showering restriction should be an absolute.   There is no reason to have Cadets and SMs showering at the same time, ever.   At most, a provision to allow a SM to be present in the same building but out of view of the showers when reasonably possible should be entertained - again, for supervisory and safety purposes.     

Cameras and other picture/video recording devices should be prohibited from use whenever and wherever any member - Cadet or otherwise - is dressing or showering.

Regarding the "meeting outside of CAP" - if the parent has been notified and has given approval, why is a third party required?


Lastly, were parents of Cadets asked to help develop these proposed changes, or will any be consulted prior to adoption?

Good post!

[coudano]

Little more tinder for the fire here, two samples

1.  I take cadet submissions for things like armstrong essays, and staff duty analysis, (and staff work, like CAC and activity planning) in google docs.  Markup with comments so they can revise, until it's all cleaned up.  That communication is now illegit // pending sharing in people on the doc, although the people sharing in would need to be google subscribers, just another hoop to jump through.

2.  A cadet at my squadron who works on the squadron just gchatted me a question about javascript.  I guess that in the future that sort of thing won't be allowed.

3 (bonus)  Sorry cadets, no more captalk for you.  You could be being groomed right here.  Nevermind the PM's (omg)  See ya.

[JoeTomasone]

they ignored their "spidey sense" because the "CC said it was ok".

The common excuse.  Of course, it's also the common answer here, even when regs are clear on a given topic.  "Just ask your CC". 

[Eeyore]

Thinking about the social media aspect of this, I checked the TOS for Facebook.

Emphasis mine.

Registration and Account Security

Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way. Here are some commitments you make to us relating to registering and maintaining the security of your account:
You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.
You will not create more than one personal account.
If we disable your account, you will not create another one without our permission.
You will not use your personal timeline primarily for your own commercial gain, and will use a Facebook Page for such purposes.
You will not use Facebook if you are under 13.
You will not use Facebook if you are a convicted sex offender.
You will keep your contact information accurate and up-to-date.
You will not share your password (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.
You will not transfer your account (including any Page or application you administer) to anyone without first getting our written permission.
If you select a username or similar identifier for your account or Page, we reserve the right to remove or reclaim it if we believe it is appropriate (such as when a trademark owner complains about a username that does not closely relate to a user's actual name).

I think requiring members to set up separate, "professional" accounts, for CAP purposes, is a violation of the TOS of most social media sites. I very well may be wrong, but it is worth noting.

[NIN]

I have it on good authority that the social media policies in the current draft have been reworked to be a little less specific, which would eliminate this conflict.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I have it on good authority that the social media policies in the current draft have been reworked to be a little less specific, which would eliminate this conflict.

That said, there's a way to make a "personality" account (i.e. Capt Smith), as opposed to a user account (John Smith).

[sarmed1]

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.

this was one of the items that really stood out to me while reading the reg as well....

So you have to watch the watcher as well...

mk

[Ned]

I want to thank everyone for the excellent feedback, both here and on the CP website.  That's exactly why we put it out for public comment -- to get additional eyes on the proposal and bring up points that neither our experts or we had fully considered.

As you may recall, the first draft was developed working closely with parents, squadron level CP officers, as well as cadets.  This feedback only makes it better.

Based on the feedback, we have modified the portions relating to "email copying," parental visitation and permissions, social media, as well as a few others.  We are putting the final touches on the revision, and hope to have it posted for additional comments soon.

Again, we sincerely appreciate the feedback.  When we work as a team, the resulting policy is better and infinitely more practical.

Ned Lee
Cadt Program Enthusiast

[a2capt]

Will the draft have the changes from the last draft annotated the same as if it were a revision to a published item?

[Elioron]

One thing I haven't noticed in this discussion so far is the impact on parents.

3-5(b) Adult members will not meet with cadets outside of official CAP activities without the prior notification and approval of the cadet's parent. If in-person contact is necessary, a third person must be present, and the meeting must take place in a public space.

In this case, if my son invites a friend that he met at CAP over for the weekend, I have to say no or be in violation.  It wouldn't be a prior relationship because they met at CAP.  They could be friends for two years, but they still met at CAP.  Even worse, if my younger son isn't there but my older son (who isn't a member anymore) invites a friend who is a cadet over we wouldn't have three members.  Heaven forbid that my son leave the room and leave me alone with the cadet - I'd need to stop whatever I was doing and go into another room or leave my house (which would then be another violation by leaving them unsupervised)!

What it means for parents is that their children are no longer allowed to have CAP friends over.  Alternatively, we resign from CAP until our children are out of the house.  This is bad.  Even if my kids aren't members anymore, they met many of their friends at CAP and many are still cadets.  To expect a 12-year-old not to develop the majority of their friendships through CAP is unrealistic.  To expect parents to be mindful of CPP rules for playdates and sleepovers is ridiculous.

[dwb]

Re-read the paragraph. A cadet inviting a cadet over is fine. Cadets meeting and being friends outside of CAP is fine, no one is saying otherwise. Cadets and non-member teenagers are outside the scope of the regulation.

The bulk of this regulation is dealing specifically with senior member-cadet contact and relationships, with some additional rules surrounding 18+ cadets.

[BillB]

One problem I see is that the unit CC is left out of the situation. Often he/she can see that while the regulation may be "bent" or misunderstood it's not a CPP violation. This applies mainly to those Boarderline cases. I also see that the 3 person rule is violated in the example of a groundteam. If there is a 4 person ground team, and one cadet is injured, two people go for help leaving one person with the injured.

[dwb]

I also see that the 3 person rule is violated in the example of a groundteam. If there is a 4 person ground team, and one cadet is injured, two people go for help leaving one person with the injured.

Well, how many times does a member of an exactly 4-person ground team become injured and the team needs to split up? It's a case that is allowed for but it's a relatively rare scenario.

Again, the regulation isn't meant to prescribe specific guidance on 100% of the cases CAP members will ever encounter. It's meant to provide general principles and standards of practice, and there is language in there that allows people on the scene (or engaged in activity planning) to deviate from those standards as situations warrant.

It's like when cadets ask for a list of punishments they're not allowed to doll out. "Tell me what's not hazing". It doesn't work that way. It's more like "here are the principles, here is the intent, here are the bright line rules, and we expect that you'll use sound judgment to fill in the rest. In case your judgment falters, we've got procedures to teach and to follow-up on those, too".

---

My concerns with the proposed changes are that (1) it's a lot of new material to digest at once, and (2) it's going to scare people off of cadet programs. They're going to fear that the reg is saying things it's not saying, or they're going to misinterpret things and, combined with CAP's FUD*-based safety culture and risk averseness, will decide not to run activities that would otherwise benefit cadets.

I'm waiting for the E-mail that says "cadets aren't allowed at the SAREX because the new CPP says we need to have three seniors supervising each one", or some such nonsense. Correcting those myths and misconceptions is going to be a full-time job for DCPs.


* FUD = fear, uncertainty, doubt

[Elioron]

Re-read the paragraph. A cadet inviting a cadet over is fine. Cadets meeting and being friends outside of CAP is fine, no one is saying otherwise. Cadets and non-member teenagers are outside the scope of the regulation.

The bulk of this regulation is dealing specifically with senior member-cadet contact and relationships, with some additional rules surrounding 18+ cadets.

It clearly states that a senior member may not have contact with a cadet outside of a meeting without A) parental consent (not an issue) and B) must occur in public.  If a cadet is in my house, there will be contact outside of those guidelines.  Not just a little outside the guidelines but significantly and blatantly so.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Re-read the paragraph. A cadet inviting a cadet over is fine. Cadets meeting and being friends outside of CAP is fine, no one is saying otherwise. Cadets and non-member teenagers are outside the scope of the regulation.

The bulk of this regulation is dealing specifically with senior member-cadet contact and relationships, with some additional rules surrounding 18+ cadets.

It clearly states that a senior member may not have contact with a cadet outside of a meeting without A) parental consent (not an issue) and B) must occur in public.  If a cadet is in my house, there will be contact outside of those guidelines.  Not just a little outside the guidelines but significantly and blatantly so.

The cadet is not there for you.

[Ned]

One of the most difficult aspects of developing policies in this area is that we all recognize that some relationships may pre-date CAP memberships, and/ or be based on some other kind of relationship entirely.  And that this happens with even greater frequency in smaller communities.

It is obviously ineffective  for CAP to have a policy that would require a senior who happens to be a public school teacher to expel a student from his class just because the student is also a cadet in the same unit.  Or require a chaplain to excommunicate every cadet who happens to be a member of her church.

Or require a senior to leave a baseball game or a movie because a cadet bought a ticket.

We get that.  Honestly, we do.

Take a look at the wording in the revised draft and let us know if we have addressed your concerns.  We hope to have it out for your comments in the next week or two.

And yes, I think it will have the changes highlighted and provide some rationale for both things we have changed and things we are not yet convinced that we should change.

Ned Lee
CP Enthusiast

[Brad]

Just to add to the pot, simply because it is legally possible and could occur, what if there is a senior member who is 21 married to someone who is 17 -- which is perfectly legal in a handful of states -- and the 17-year old joins CAP as a cadet. I know CAP regs say "Marriage after age 18" is a reason to terminate cadet membership, but does that mean getting married after age 18, or simply being in the married status? Plus how would it figure into the new CPPT?

Also, with this bit here:

f. Semi-Private Discussions. Adult leaders who need to mentor or counsel cadets individually during official activities should do so in the presence of a third person when reasonably possible. Alternatively, one-on one meetings are permitted if conducted in a semi-open setting (ie: office door kept ajar, or conversing away from, but in sight of, the group, or other circumstances).

what about the provision that Chaplains can be alone with Cadets for counseling? Is that being done away with? Are they going to have to come under the semi-private rule now?

[a2capt]

..at the dawn of age 18, they need to turn senior member. The option to continue to 21 is not available to them, as a cadet.

[Elioron]

The cadet is not there for you.

The same could be said about a SM and cadet that work together - still a violation.

Just to be clear, I understand that there isn't any intent to put parents and other well-meaning members in jeopardy, but the biggest issue with most things are the unintended consequences.  Part of having public discourse is to expose these possible consequences.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

The same could be said about a SM and cadet that work together - still a violation.

If I had a business that hired teenagers, our cadets would be the type I'd want to hire.