Mandatory 2b Hearings? A possible end to potential Abuse?

[Major Carrales]

Before I Begin, terms like "Mandatory" in CAP had often carried little weight due to the status of being Volunteers.  However, I submit that in the terms of certain procedures (ie. safety, procedural admin and cadet program admin) the use of the word and concept is justified.

Mandatory 2b Hearings:  Maybe all 2b's should be subject to a Group/Wing Level hearing as described by SMilin' Kach on another thread.  Kach mentioned that there were hardly implemented because it was not really worth it in a volunteer organization.

However, in the same thread we saw many instances and examples of what I call the CAPRR, Civil Air Patrol Railroad.  That is, where a commander abuses the system to get a person thrown out for trivial matters...or in a response to despotism et al.

Would it not be more regulated if a 2b, every 2b, had to have a hearing of Group Level, or Wing if the Wing has no Groups, to address these matters?

I know what some are thinking, that would bog down the process and we should concentrate on Mission Ops and Cadets.  That being said, I think this sort of thing would provide more safeguards and, by simple virtue of the fact that a "mandatory" 2b review board would lessen the number of "junk 2bs."

Plus, the review panel could exercise the same prerogative that the Supreme Court does in that it can chose its docket.  Thus, a 2b that is tabled or rejected for hearing would be "pocket vetoed," requiring a re-submittal.  The hearings would be held quarterly.  Commanders would be asked to "solve their problems at the lowest level first.

What say you?  Is this accountability?  Is this viable?  If not, can this be worked to viability?

[ZigZag911]

If this is done, the chairs of any such panels ought to be JAGs who are not presently serving as wing or region legal officers.

[MIKE]

The existing appeals process is not sufficient?

[MattPHS2002]

The existing appeals process is not sufficient?

I think what he is getting at is that some people are not told about them, thus by making it mandatory, Commanders would less easily be able to 2B someone because they don't like them.

[ZigZag911]

Unfortunately it is too vulnerable to command influence.

[Major Carrales]

If this is done, the chairs of any such panels ought to be JAGs who are not presently serving as wing or region legal officers.

Good point.  There is not real "judicial mechinism" currently in CAP other than these seldom used tribunals that no one know about.  What if it were staffed by...

1) Persons from other Groups...parts of the Wing.

2) Appointed personnel from CAP National or Region

3) Committee picked partially by the Wing and partically by High National Authority

You are correct, staffing of it is critical.

[Major Carrales]

The existing appeals process is not sufficient?

The current process has produced the horror stories in the other thread.  I would tell you this, if I was ever graced with a 2b...I would fight it.  Imagine my disgust if the so-called panel was "in name only."  Or done via the internet/e-mail?  Or if I was told no such thing existed (which was what I once got from an inquiryI made to someone years back on this matter)

Problem is a lot of our system is not in place.  That is how bogus 2bs get processed leaving people out in the cold.  I want to see a review board with some teeth (as well as other metaphorical organs!)

I will echo MattPHS2002's comment..."by making it mandatory, Commanders would less easily be able to 2B someone because they don't like them."

I am a Squadron Commander and have never used the 2b Process...I don't intend to do it soon nor do I look forward to ever doing it.  But I am one of those rare folks committed to the IDEAL of JUSTICE.  When I ever have to do such a thing I hope that the Officer or Cadet that I am going to 2b get a fair shake.  That my emotionalism, the type that so often accompanies a 2b, will be mitigated by a system of checks and balances.

[DHollywood]

Perhaps if members were more aware of the IG Program and the dispute resolution processes therein many problems would be resolved BEFORE a 2B was reached ??

IG's do much more that SUI's....

[IceNine]

Bingo, the IG should be the chair of these boards and there should be a formal investigation.  The comment made that these boards would bog down the system are irrelevant.  Removing someone from membership in the program should not be a fast track item, it should be well documented, investigated, confirmed and tracked. 

If there is not a substantial amount of documented misconduct there is no cause for a 2B.  If there is a trail of paperwork that shows escalation of misconduct and the discipline then there may be cause for a 2B.

[Major Carrales]

Well said J.Hendricks and DHollywood. 

Who is it on these boards that says, "let the system work."  We have to take these things seriously.

[wingnut]

Ya know when I kept hearing about 2b I thought

"2b or not 2b, --that is the question:--
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?"

slightly altered From Hamlet (III, i, 56-61)

Is the Commander Jealous of the Senior member

"O, beware, my lord of jealousy;
It is the green-ey'd monster which doth mock
The meat it feeds on."

--From Othello (III, iii, 165-167) Yes and Othello killed his wife by mistake!!!

or mabybe its REVENGE

[capchiro]

Gentlemen, I would submit that the current 2b system is adequate and well laid out in the Reg's.  If someone accuses or suspects that a unit commander is abusing the system, than that is when the IG should be notified and involved.  I would hope this is rare and not a common occurrence.  The other concern was about a member knowing his rights regarding the 2b status.  With any 2b action, the unit commander has to notify the member of the action.  With our Reg's being publicly accessable, I dare say that any member should be able to locate the Reg and read and understand the process and his/her rights.  I have not seen an abuse of the system personally in 35 years of experience.  I would imagine it could happen, but if there is a commander doing so, we probably have a bigger problem than the 2b.  I have heard of the occasional Napoleon commander, but not for long.  2b is a last option and if a commander is intelligent, he will consider other options and confer with a more experienced commander or group commander before getting involved in such things.  Very few members need to be 2b'ed and perhaps members seeing 2b actions in almost everything should be suspect.  JMHO

[JohnKachenmeister]

I think Capchiro is right.

There are two things that can be appealed:

1.  The incident(s) never happened, the 2b'ed member is innocent of what the commander accused him of.

or

2.  The incident(s) happened, and the officer did them, but they are of a trivial nature that a termination is not the appropriate response.

In the case of item #1, then fight it through a board.  Make the commander put his lying witnesses on the spot, and tear them up in cross examination.

In the case of #2, a well-written, reasoned letter to the reviewer can work wonders.  It still has to go to a board, but in a board of 3 officers if you can convince 2 that the incident does not warrant termination, you stay in.

(But I'd transfer to a new unit at light speed.)

Then there is the class of persons who KNOW they simply can't follow regulations; that they are special people for whom the regulations shouldn't apply.  They are the ones who, when faced with justifying their actions to three or more senior officers will take the easy way out and let the 30-day appeal window pass without action.  Farewell and adieu.

[jimmydeanno]

I have yet to see any abuses regarding people who have actually been 2b'd, but what I see is a failure from IG staff and legal to perform investigations and return any findings in cases that are clearly open and shut.  I understand the need for investigations not to be public, but the all too common approach of "maybe if we do nothing it will go away" just doesn't work.

The idea of a formal '2b board' is alright in my mind, it brings things out into the open for the member in question and can stop a lot of 'back door politics' that happen through e-mails, phone conversations, etc.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I have yet to see any abuses regarding people who have actually been 2b'd, but what I see is a failure from IG staff and legal to perform investigations and return any findings in cases that are clearly open and shut.  I understand the need for investigations not to be public, but the all too common approach of "maybe if we do nothing it will go away" just doesn't work.

The idea of a formal '2b board' is alright in my mind, it brings things out into the open for the member in question and can stop a lot of 'back door politics' that happen through e-mails, phone conversations, etc.

Two things, Jimmy:

1.  A formal board is mandatory under 35-3 if the Respondent officer or cadet requests it.

2.  The Wing Commander determines whether or not a formal IG inquiry is warranted. 

[sparks]

Ultimately it comes down to the integrity of the squadron and wing leadership. Good commanders with a decent IG will see that the 2b option isn't abused. It should be the last resort concerning cadet or senior behavior.

I have seen the system work as described in the regulation and also witnessed abuses under different management. It shouldn't be used to settle old or new scores but has been at the highest levels.

Creating a new list of rules won't change the prosecution and abuse of them only better managers/officers will accomplish that.

Enforcing the current regulation and appointing IGs independent of the wing/region/national commander would be a good start.

[ZigZag911]

IG ordinarily conducts the investigation, and therefore should not chair the review/appeal board...in this country, we don't have 'investigating magistrates'.

Any such board should be independent and objective.

[Major Carrales]

Enforcing the current regulation and appointing IGs independent of the wing/region/national commander would be a good start.

I think holding mandatory hearings is that "enforcement."  Even if these hearings expose more than just an expulsion.  Sometimes you have to insure there is a lightbulb that works in the socket to illumante the scattering roaches.

[tribalelder]

"There are two things that can be appealed:

1.  The incident(s) never happened, the 2b'ed member is innocent of what the commander accused him of.

or

2.  The incident(s) happened, and the officer did them, but they are of a trivial nature that a termination is not the appropriate response."

I've been a party to 30+ over the years.

I've coached initiating CC's.

I've been the Appeal Authority -- the Group Commander-- on a bunch of membership terminations. 

I've chaired one appeal board.

As John K. (excuse the informality, please) has observed, it'as always a question of the facts AND what they mean. 

However, comply with procedure.  Time limits, confirmable delivery of notices...

The initiating CC needs to advise the Appeal Authority FIRST.  There is nothing better than preparedness--have a board lined up AND a couple of dates picked that fit within the time window before that 2b notice goes out.  Offer them to the respondent, but he has to make a written request for hearing.

"An Appeal Board has been appointed; in the event you make a written request for a hearing in this matter, the following dates are available for the hearing (Insert dates, times).  Alternate dates may also be available."

When  the CC and Appeal Authority are ready for hearing, the cases where the CC is right will be unlikely to go to hearing.   

If you love CAP, you will hate doing 2b's, but you also know you need to-hopefully rarely.

[JohnKachenmeister]

When I commanded a company in the Army, I sometimes had to do Article 15 actions.  Before I did so, I would:

1.  Notify my boss, the CG, that I intended to Article 15 a trooper, and why.

2.  Notify the SJA, and review with him the necesary elements of the offense.

3.  Notify the Trial Defense Service, so they could have a lawyer ready to meet with the trooper to advise him.

This made for a smooth and court-martial free environment for the Article 15.  The best compliment I received was on one of the last ones I ran.  The soldier carried on about his innocence to the Trial Defense Attorney.  The lawyer then asked what unit the soldier was in, and upon hearing that it was my company advsied him to accept the Article 15, but to allow him to speak to some of the charges in mitigation.  The lawyer told the soldier, "I know Captain Kachenmeister will be fair, and I trust him to come to a fair judgement."

Your 2b action should be approached with just that much preparation...and fairness.