Cadets & Pregnancy

[Eclipse]

And was that revision before or after 2001?

"Revision" was probably the wrong term - the NB/NEC/BOG powers haven't changed substantially in since at least the late 90's, though the constitution has been amended on an ongoing basis since at least 2000.

Management by ICL, supplement, addendum, and memorandum and been status quo during my tenure, right or wrong the precedent is already in place.

As an easily-reached, visible example, the CSU exists only long-expired ICLs, but there's plenty of other areas we can find of much more importance than a uniform where rules with real consequence were put in place and are enforced without the regs being properly updated.

[cnitas]

And was that revision before or after 2001?

"Revision" was probably the wrong term - the NB/NEC/BOG powers haven't changed substantially in since at least the late 90's, though the constitution has been amended on an ongoing basis since at least 2000.

Management by ICL, supplement, addendum, and memorandum and been status quo during my tenure, right or wrong the precedent is already in place.

As an easily-reached, visible example, the CSU exists only long-expired ICLs, but there's plenty of other areas we can find of much more importance than a uniform where rules with real consequence were put in place and are enforced without the regs being properly updated.

OK, great.  Where is the ICL, supplement, addendum, or memorandum?  Or does Knowledge base answer make it on that list as well?

[Eclipse]

And was that revision before or after 2001?

"Revision" was probably the wrong term - the NB/NEC/BOG powers haven't changed substantially in since at least the late 90's, though the constitution has been amended on an ongoing basis since at least 2000.

Management by ICL, supplement, addendum, and memorandum and been status quo during my tenure, right or wrong the precedent is already in place.

As an easily-reached, visible example, the CSU exists only long-expired ICLs, but there's plenty of other areas we can find of much more importance than a uniform where rules with real consequence were put in place and are enforced without the regs being properly updated.

OK, great.  Where is the ICL, supplement, addendum, or memorandum?  Or does Knowledge base answer make it on that list as well?

In this case its in the minutes of the 2001 NB meeting, which are public record once the minutes are approved.  The KB simply provides the detail of where to find the answer.

August 2001 National Board Minutes
4. ITEM: Discrimination in Termination of Cadet Membership
COL SCORSINE/WY moved a substitute motion, COL LINKER/ME seconded that the National Board amend CAPR 35-3, paragraph 3, Causes to Terminate Cadet Membership, under (a) Automatic Termination, in two places: First, sub-paragraph (2) Marriage—add the language "after reaching the age of eighteen." Second, sub-paragraph (9) Pregnancy— delete the paragraph.

MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Notification to CAC and the field, implementation of new procedure, and change to CAPR 35-3

I'd say a factor in this getting lost in the shuffle were the events of 911 which took CAP's focus for several months right after that meeting, but the fact remains that a body with the authority made the above rules change, and the fact that notification was not made properly is a procedural issue, not a regulatory one.

[lordmonar]

Since when are NB votes regulatory?

Since before the start of time!

Who do you thing "writes" the regs?

Granted there is a lot of negligence going on on this issue and many others.  A lot of that is because we don't have a full time staff to do the leg work.

In the mean time go to KB.....

[ThorntonOL]

OK, has anyone even checked the Knowledgebase yet?
This is what the Knowledgebase gave as an answer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Pregnant cadets

  Question
  What if a cadet becomes pregnant? Where can I find the regulation on that since I heard that it changed?

  Answer
  Pregnancy is no longer a cause for automatic termination of membership. An early change (Change 2 dated 1 Jul 1985) to CAPR 35-3 Membership Termination added pregnancy as {paragraph 3a(9)} one of the reasons for automatic loss of membership by cadets, but that is no longer the case.

The policy was changed by the National Board in August 2001 when the Board approved a recommendation to remove pregnancy as a cause for automatic termination (see below).

August 2001 National Board Minutes
4. ITEM: Discrimination in Termination of Cadet Membership
COL SCORSINE/WY moved a substitute motion, COL LINKER/ME seconded that the National Board amend CAPR 35-3, paragraph 3, Causes to Terminate Cadet Membership, under (a) Automatic Termination, in two places: First, sub-paragraph (2) Marriage—add the language "after reaching the age of eighteen." Second, sub-paragraph (9) Pregnancy— delete the paragraph.

MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Notification to CAC and the field, implementation of new procedure, and change to CAPR 35-3.

I would suggest asking National for a complete clarification if this doesn't suffice.
Seriously this has gotten out of hand.

[jimmydeanno]

There isn't anything that has gotten out of hand...I think that this has been a very good discussion so far.  Obviously if the reg says keep them, we're going to - but the discussion is more along the lines of "should we" and "is it actually discrimination," etc.

I think that there has been numerous good points brought out in this thread and it has proved to be informative for me.  Just the fact that we noted that a change to membership criteria has been changed and hasn't been updated in a reg 8 years later was reason enough to bring this up.

As for the knowledgebase, well - that's another thread.

[Nathan]

There isn't anything that has gotten out of hand...I think that this has been a very good discussion so far.  Obviously if the reg says keep them, we're going to - but the discussion is more along the lines of "should we" and "is it actually discrimination," etc.

I think that there has been numerous good points brought out in this thread and it has proved to be informative for me.  Just the fact that we noted that a change to membership criteria has been changed and hasn't been updated in a reg 8 years later was reason enough to bring this up.

As for the knowledgebase, well - that's another thread.

Indeed.

There doesn't have to be a definite possibility for every single thread, especially on CAPTalk... this is a discussion board, for the purpose of discussion. It is discussion which can both motivate the membership one way or the other in order to bring about a change, and I certainly don't think that it's necessary for the possibility of change to already be on the table before discussion can be considered valid...

[cnitas]

I agree with Jimmydeanno.  I am not overly emotional about this and I have never run across the situation before.

I am only pointing out that there is a gaping hole in our published regulations if they do accurately describe our membership criteria.

I can guarantee you that a cadet facing a 2B in this case will not know to go searching votes for the latest NB decision.  You would be really lucky if they find the regulation.

Maybe a 25% change they search the KB.
What are the chances the average unit commander will go looking beyond the regulation?

[Eclipse]

Cadets have parents, they are very useful in these situations.

Further, any unit CC worth his salt, when confronted with terminating anyone, should be consulting higher HQ, if for no other reason than the next echelon is the appeal authority and they should be aware.

Hopefully by the time you get to parents, a Group or Wing CC, etc., someone knows the regs or can be bothered to do 30 seconds of research.

In this specific case, all it would take is a cadet checking the KB, or calling NHQ and asking the question, which would bring out the about NB decision, and likely end the conversation.

At some point, this isn't the BSA or an after-school club.  Our cadets are afforded some pretty grown-up opportunities, and part of the price for that is accepting responsibility for knowing the regs and being current on NEC/NB actions. Somehow they get the word on berets and patches, but are allowed to ignore the important stuff like NIMS and pregnancy.

Same goes for commanders, this ongoing nonsense about not being able to keep up is just that, nonsense.  No one can know everything, but the collective knowledge is available to anyone with the initiative to type in a search box.

[Nathan]

Further, any unit CC worth his salt, when confronted with terminating anyone, should be consulting higher HQ, if for no other reason than the next echelon is the appeal authority and they should be aware.

True, however, it's not the commanders who are going to be the ones in trouble if they choose not to do the work expected of them in this particular situation. It could be that the commander simply shakes his head when the potential cadet comes in without ever really notifying anyone above him or her. The end.

That, plus the commander's personal bias against a teenaged mother/pregnant teenager may in itself be enough for this cadet to be unfairly barred entry into the program. After all, the commander may well have some idea that there MIGHT be something beyond the regulation out there, but if he or she doesn't want the cadet in the program at the first place, there isn't exactly and motivation to go find it...

Granted, I'm not trying to turn this into a fight between pregnant teens and squadron commanders. However, the mistake/negligence of a squadron commander is punitive toward the potential cadet, and the potential can be reduced considerably by making things more clear.

[Cecil DP]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
  pregnant cadets

  Question
  What if a cadet becomes pregnant? Where can I find the regulation on that since I heard that it changed?

  Answer
  Pregnancy is no longer a cause for automatic termination of membership. An early change (Change 2 dated 1 Jul 1985) to CAPR 35-3 Membership Termination added pregnancy as {paragraph 3a(9)} one of the reasons for automatic loss of membership by cadets, but that is no longer the case.

The policy was changed by the National Board in August 2001 when the Board approved a recommendation to remove pregnancy as a cause for automatic termination (see below).

August 2001 National Board Minutes
4. ITEM: Discrimination in Termination of Cadet Membership
COL SCORSINE/WY moved a substitute motion, COL LINKER/ME seconded that the National Board amend CAPR 35-3, paragraph 3, Causes to Terminate Cadet Membership, under (a) Automatic Termination, in two places: First, subparagraph (2) Marriage—add the language after reaching the age of eighteen." Second, subparagraph (9) Pregnancy delete the paragraph.

MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Notification to CAC and the field, implementation of new procedure, and change to CAPR 35-3.

I would suggest asking National for a complete clarification if this doesn't suffice.
Seriously this has gotten out of hand.

The problem is that until the Regulation is published it's not in effect. Even the ICL's are temporary fixes which have limited life. Now that the Regs are available electronically and therefore do not have to be printed out, CAP is still not updating. I think that if HQ disagrees with a change by the Board or NEC it just drags it;s feet until it's forgotten.

[Eclipse]

The problem is that until the Regulation is published it's not in effect. Even the ICL's are temporary fixes which have limited life. Now that the Regs are available electronically and therefore do not have to be printed out, CAP is still not updating. I think that if HQ disagrees with a change by the Board or NEC it just drags it;s feet until it's forgotten.

Sorry, you guys can continue to make that assertion all you want, it is simply not true.  Read the constitution and bylaws.

The BOG, NB, and NEC have their respective powers, period.  There is no allowance for delay in implementation or effective date (unless the decision so stipulates).