Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 14, 2017, 02:52:28 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Cadet Programs  |  Cadet Programs Management & Activities  |  Topic: Cadet Disciplinary Process in a Squadron
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2  All Print
Author Topic: Cadet Disciplinary Process in a Squadron  (Read 2936 times)
kwaaikat
Newbie

Posts: 4

« on: November 03, 2017, 10:06:16 PM »

Is there guidance on a disciplinary process to adress the following situation:
Cadets participate in an cyber patriot evening.  Some cadets are in the same room, they are all focussing on one computer. Another cadet, working on adiffrent computer accidentally bumps a wifi router from a table when he gets up.  He picks up the router, see there is some damage, but he thinks he can fix it by clicking most of the panels together. He places it back, not sure if it is functioning. Some cadets saw that it hapened, but did not think that the cadet broke the router, but saw that he worked on the panels.  A senior member later picks up the router to plug it in and see its broken. He asks the cadets if they know why it is broken. The cadets say they just saw it fell and that the cadet closest to it picked it up and seemed to have put it together. The cadet says he is not sure how the router came to fall as the cadet had their back turned, but thye put the pieces together to the bets of their knowledge. The cadet apologised for not informing the senior member sooner. The senior member asked if the cadet knew who caused the router to fall. The cadet denies any knowledge of how the router came about falling.  The senior member contact the Deputy Commander of cadets.  The Deputy asks to be put on speaker phone and ask the cadets to inform the senior member who did this.  The Deputy states that they can do it on an individual basis.  No cadets came forward implicating the cadet. The Deputy gives the cadets the option to e-mail the deputy also on an individual basis in order to tell the deputy what happened. The week following the incident the deputy sends a mail to cadets and parent saying that they will hold an inquiry to determine the guilty person. The cadet on seeing this mail responded with an email stating that the cadet is not sure why the router fell, but is pretty sure no cadets caused it to fall and that the cadet did not see it fell but only heard it fell. No senior member replied to the mail. On the squadron night the inquiry panel consisted of the following senior members: Squadron Commander, the Deputy Commander of Cadets, the 2 senior members that was present as well as the leadership development senior member, and the Cadet Commander a C/Capt.  they questioned all the cadets present and the cadet who sent the mail last. The cadet after being interrogated thoroughly only eventually admitted that the cadet bumped the table, causing the router to fall off and get damaged.

The cadet is a staff member and have been very dedicated and dilligent in attending weekly, encampments, wing events and promoting regularly.

I have a couple of questions:
Was the process necessary or fair to the cadet who was "found" guilty.
What should be an appropriate consequence to the cadet.
Is there any regulatory guidance procedure regulating "inquiries/inquests into cadets behaviors"
What could have been another way to handle the cadets actions more positively

Would be interesting to hear other
Logged
GZCP31
Recruit

Posts: 6
Unit: SWR-AR-095

« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2017, 10:22:29 PM »

I only have an additional question. Why was the router so close to the edge of the table where it could easily be knocked off? It seams to me that appropriate risk management evaluation was not done prior. This could have prevented this from happening.
Logged
Former OK Wing DCL/DCA Mid 90s, Rejoined after 17 years out.
1LT. Communications-Master
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,072

« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2017, 10:25:10 PM »

Inquiry panel?  That's not a CAP "thing".

A piece of equipment was broken, probably because it was somewhere it didn't belong and the
senior members who are actually supposed to be, you know, supervising, FAILED.

5 minutes on taking responsibility >if< you do something >deliberate<, otherwise forget it, move on.

Geez..."Inquiry panel"...seriously, >WHERE< do people come up with NONSENSE like this?

What could have been another way to handle the cadets actions more positively

Have the Commander review the regulations on what to do when corporate equipment is damaged.

Hint: It doesn't involve a tribunal.

I've had people total COVs and bend airplanes who got less grief then this / these cadets did over a piece
of $30 Chinese plastic that was probably where it didn't belong to start with.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2017, 10:28:30 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,072

« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2017, 11:59:04 PM »

In the spirit of providing guidance...

When a piece of property is damaged, it's to be reported through ORMS, at which
point the Wing CC will appoint an investigator to complete a Report of Survey.

"Investigations", other then ROS', are only performed by properly appointed IGs, when necessary,
and generally based on a complaint, though a Wing CC could, I suppose, appoint one for something
like this if he wanted.

Disciplinary actions for cadets, when warranted, should start with a properly-phased CAPF 50 conference,
and in a case like this, involve parents, and be done in private.  Appropriate level of intensity,
as always, is key, and in this case, the level is "zero".

A situation like this could turn into hazing very quickly, and based solely on provided information
may well have ventured down that road.

Accidents happen.  If a cadet is suspected of an integrity violation, it's possible to ascertain
whether anything can be proved or not with low-intensity conversations (vs. tribunals), and
usually handled with a "knock it off" 3000psi stare.

Repeated issues are a different matter, handled with things like F50s, loss of staff roles,
demotions, LORs, etc., all private and discrete.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2017, 12:05:15 AM by Eclipse » Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,587

« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2017, 12:12:11 AM »

I have a couple of questions:
Was the process necessary or fair to the cadet who was "found" guilty.
No.  You have set yourself up for a valid IG complain. 
Quote
What should be an appropriate consequence to the cadet.
Depends on what his offense is.   If it is just that he broke the WIFI....he should replace it or pay for the replacement.   If it is for not coming forward......well, I would say that you can expect a cadet to have 5th amendment rights and therefore I don't see how you can punish him for that.
Quote
Is there any regulatory guidance procedure regulating "inquiries/inquests into cadets behaviors"
NOPE NONE NADA.
Quote
What could have been another way to handle the cadets actions more positively
Let the commander with his advisors figure out what happened and then take action as needed.
Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 692
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2017, 01:12:38 AM »

I have a couple of questions:
Was the process necessary or fair to the cadet who was "found" guilty.
No.  You have set yourself up for a valid IG complain. 
Quote
What should be an appropriate consequence to the cadet.
Depends on what his offense is.   If it is just that he broke the WIFI....he should replace it or pay for the replacement.   If it is for not coming forward......well, I would say that you can expect a cadet to have 5th amendment rights and therefore I don't see how you can punish him for that.
Quote
Is there any regulatory guidance procedure regulating "inquiries/inquests into cadets behaviors"
NOPE NONE NADA.
Quote
What could have been another way to handle the cadets actions more positively
Let the commander with his advisors figure out what happened and then take action as needed.

I donít like what happened, if it did happen as described. But 5th Amendment Rights donít seem to be relevant here, as the matter was a non-criminal administrative inquiry. Of course, whether or not that inquiry should have happened is another matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,587

« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2017, 02:35:12 AM »

I'm always suspect of discipline that is of the type "Cadet refused to admit that he/she did xyz".       

Same with "Cadets Apple and Brown, refused to tell me who did xyz".

Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
kwe1009
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 758

« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2017, 07:59:16 AM »

Suggest all Senior Members involved go through TLC-Basic and TLC-Intermediate as soon as possible.  Just based on the OP, a lot went wrong and most of it is the fault of Senior Members.  It can be assumed that the cadet did not immediately admit to any fault because there is a cloud of fear of messing up in the squadron.  If that is the case, that needs to change immediately.  The Cadet Program is about teaching young people to be leaders, part of that training is allowing them to make mistakes and not have to face a firing squad when mistakes are made.

I've had people total COVs and bend airplanes who got less grief then this / these cadets did over a piece of $30 Chinese plastic that was probably where it didn't belong to start with.

Very true.
Logged
stillamarine
400,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 812
Unit: SER-AL-134

« Reply #8 on: November 04, 2017, 10:25:57 AM »

I've had people total COVs and bend airplanes who got less grief then this / these cadets did over a piece
of $30 Chinese plastic that was probably where it didn't belong to start with.

I've seen homicide suspects get less grief than this.
Logged
Tim Gardiner, 1st LT, CAP

USMC AD 1996-2001
USMCR    2001-2005  Admiral, Great State of Nebraska Navy  MS, MO, UDF
tim.gardiner@gmail.com
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 865

« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2017, 11:43:13 AM »


 The cadet apologised for not informing the senior member sooner.

And that should have been the end of it.

Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP
kwe1009
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 758

« Reply #10 on: November 04, 2017, 12:09:39 PM »


 The cadet apologised for not informing the senior member sooner.

And that should have been the end of it.

This should be a teaching moment for all involved (cadet and SM).
Logged
bluehoodie
Recruit

Posts: 10

« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2017, 08:42:01 PM »

The only person who should have been questioned was the team coach. If the coach was supervising them they would have seen a router being put back together. The coach should have also stepped in and stopped the interrogation of the team members.
Logged
spaatzmom
Seasoned Member

Posts: 288

« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2017, 12:39:06 AM »

Sadly, it seems as though several adults have forgotten the definition of accident, ad that children when grilled by a group of  adults in a supervisory position are easily intimidated.

I do hope this kangaroo court followed some good practice rules while doing this, like parents were present for the minor children to be hmmm questioned.  If not, I hop they have deep pockets cause it could get rather expensive far out pricing the cost of replacing equipment which should have been properly monitored and in a safe position by the senior member in charge.

Ya a kid subjected to hard core questioning is going o try to cover their backside, but I see several adults are doing the same thing and in a morally superior fashion.  What they did was bullying those who look to them for leadership and guidance.  What did they just teach those cadets?  Nothing I would be proud to proclaim any connection with.
Logged
kwaaikat
Newbie

Posts: 4

« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2017, 07:24:57 AM »

Thanks for the information and opinions provided.
I am thinking the following.  The cadet lied and there should be a consequence to him.  The consequence should promote a learning opportunity and strengthen the squadrons core by not "punishing" cadets by isolation. "You did wrong, now you are bad and you need to get better again before you are usefull to the squadron again". If that course of action will be followed it will be taken up the chain of command. My alternative suggestion, is to task the cadet as well as all the other cadets that was there to prepare and present to squadron cadets a talk on our core value Integrity. Not by saying we did it and thats what went wrong, but use it in a scenario and then let the cadets indicate where the value was compromised and what would have been an alternative course of action. I would like then that the cadets who lied only at the end tell the squadron that this was actually a real event in this squadron and that he was the cadet who messed up.  But that through counselling and support he can now teach others and now that he has experienced how not living up to our values can jeopardize your reputation as a cadet leadr is not worth not living up to our potential.

I firmly believe that any negative situation involving cadets should be dealt witn swiftly, fairly and with compassion.  We should always look for the learning opportunity in resolving, without scaring cadets. Discpline is born from respect not fear. I am not sure that this was at the center of this incident.

Couple of clarifications may be necessary to understand more of CAP prcedures.
The router was the private property of one of the senior members.  This senior member did the right thing to report that it was broken by accident and that no one took responsibility.  After that in my opinion all went wrong.

This is not a hypothetical scenario, i will post updates on the resolution. I trust the resolution will be positive.

Thanks again for giving input. Always good to check ones reasoning on matters like this.

Great forum and CAP is a great organization for adults and cadets. Any opportunity to make it even better should not be allowed to pass by because of inaction.
Logged
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,326
Unit: Classified

« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2017, 09:39:25 AM »

There is so much wrong with this scenario, I wouldn't even know where to start to dissect it.  And I may be wrong but I am seeing some potential violations of CPP. 

No inquiry should have happened, no "interrogation" should have happened and ultimately this whole thing was blown out of proportion.  I have had to deal with some cadets but never once set up an inquiry or anything else.  And I made [darn] sure that I called the parent(s) of said cadet as well. 

OP were the cadets parents even told about this at all?  If not well don't be surprised if they pursue some action. 
Logged
Chappie
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,053

« Reply #15 on: November 05, 2017, 12:08:12 PM »

Reading this for the first time....and I am wondering:  What in the blue blazes did I just read????   A tribunal is called for an accident????   If the cadet maliciously took the wifi/router and smashed it to pieces in a fit of anger or act of vandalism...then something should be said.   Prior to my recent retirement, I was an IT guy with a law enforcement agency with hundreds of personnel - 24/7 - and thousands of dollars worth of computer equipment: workstations, monitors, printers, scanners, laptops, mobile data computers (in-car systems), wifi routers, etc.   Things were always getting broken (nothing beats a shotgun that was being unlocked by the deputy riding "shotgun" making impact with the $3000 touchscreen monitor in the unit when the deputy driving in pursuit slammed on the brakes causing resulting in...well, you get the picture -- "can we fix this with Gorilla Glue????).  Chalked it up to a training matter.  Accidents happen....things get broken...repair or replace it...move on.    As for a "Core Value" issue....eventually the mystery of the broken router was solved.   I see this as a teaching/training moment.
Logged
Disclaimer:  Not to be confused with the other user that goes by "Chappy"   :)
Chappie
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,053

« Reply #16 on: November 05, 2017, 12:17:08 PM »


<snip>

Couple of clarifications may be necessary to understand more of CAP prcedures.
The router was the private property of one of the senior members.  This senior member did the right thing to report that it was broken by accident and that no one took responsibility.  After that in my opinion all went wrong.

This is not a hypothetical scenario, i will post updates on the resolution. I trust the resolution will be positive.

Thanks again for giving input. Always good to check ones reasoning on matters like this.
<snip>



I have provided my personal property on occasions....and take full responsibility for it.   Always the watchful "hawk" and ensure that it is being used properly and in a manner in which damage can and should be limited.   As owner, I take the risk of providing it --- being aware that something could happen to it.







« Last Edit: November 05, 2017, 12:22:04 PM by Chappie » Logged
Disclaimer:  Not to be confused with the other user that goes by "Chappy"   :)
stillamarine
400,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 812
Unit: SER-AL-134

« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2017, 03:23:06 PM »

Reading this for the first time....and I am wondering:  What in the blue blazes did I just read????   A tribunal is called for an accident????   If the cadet maliciously took the wifi/router and smashed it to pieces in a fit of anger or act of vandalism...then something should be said.   Prior to my recent retirement, I was an IT guy with a law enforcement agency with hundreds of personnel - 24/7 - and thousands of dollars worth of computer equipment: workstations, monitors, printers, scanners, laptops, mobile data computers (in-car systems), wifi routers, etc.   Things were always getting broken (nothing beats a shotgun that was being unlocked by the deputy riding "shotgun" making impact with the $3000 touchscreen monitor in the unit when the deputy driving in pursuit slammed on the brakes causing resulting in...well, you get the picture -- "can we fix this with Gorilla Glue????).  Chalked it up to a training matter.  Accidents happen....things get broken...repair or replace it...move on.    As for a "Core Value" issue....eventually the mystery of the broken router was solved.   I see this as a teaching/training moment.

True story. In 2009 we completely replaced our fleet of patrol assigned vehicles. Within 6 months 80% of the Coban MDTs did not work.
Logged
Tim Gardiner, 1st LT, CAP

USMC AD 1996-2001
USMCR    2001-2005  Admiral, Great State of Nebraska Navy  MS, MO, UDF
tim.gardiner@gmail.com
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,326
Unit: Classified

« Reply #18 on: November 05, 2017, 04:17:31 PM »

The router was the private property of one of the senior members.  This senior member did the right thing to report that it was broken by accident and that no one took responsibility. 

If this is in fact the case, then the unit went overboard with this inquiry and if that was my cadet I'd be pissed and having some words with the CC and CDC. 

The SM brought personal property to a function (all inclusive term) and took the responsibility and liability that it may get damaged.  I have used my personal laptop and wi-fi hot spot for CAP on numerous occasions and even allowed other SM's to as well but at the end of the day had something happened to it the fault is on me not someone else. 

The cadet in question needs to rebut anything form of action that may have been handed down to the Grp CC, and the Grp CC needs to have a convo with the SM's involved with this. 
Logged
Chappie
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,053

« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2017, 04:24:21 PM »

Tim....  Wow!!!  80%.  Fortunately, our agency used DATA 9-1-1 products (California based company).   Had great warranty on MDC products (the broken screen was on us though due to operator error).   They replaced screens, hard drives, mics, cameras, antennas, etc. in a timely manner.  Older systems were being updated/replaced as I was transitioning into retirement.

Back to topic at hand....tech products get broken and need to be repaired/replaced.  Forgot to mention about a detective who shut a Toughbook laptop with his pen on top of the keyboard.  Oops. Screen not covered by warranty.

Concur with the observation by abdsp51.
Logged
Disclaimer:  Not to be confused with the other user that goes by "Chappy"   :)
Pages: [1] 2  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  Cadet Programs  |  Cadet Programs Management & Activities  |  Topic: Cadet Disciplinary Process in a Squadron
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.201 seconds with 20 queries.
click here to email me