CPPT: Females required when cadet females present?

[PHall]

Make that shouldn't be alone with cadets...

Cite please on that too.

[PHall]

^^^MER didn't have the rule that I know about.

PCR and RMR both had supplements that required a female senior present for pretty much any activity involving female cadets.  I don't know if these supplements are still in effect because they are not listed on the websites anymore.  The point here is that you can always follow the reg to the letter but it can't hurt to "add on."

As for the shot about not having enough senior supervision, unless you are going to keep someone up all night to stop it from happening there isn't much more you can do other than the things that we have already implemented.  We had six officers there with about 12-14 cadets.  If someone wants to do something like that, there isn't much you can do.  They will find a way. 

PCR had that supplement? Are you sure, are you really sure? I would dearly love to see that supplement because there has never been such a thing.

I've been a cadet and senior in PCR for over 30 years and I have never heard of a supplement like that.

[JoeTomasone]

I think that there holes in 52-10 that need to be filled in, specifically one-on-one contact between cadets and seniors of any sex and cadets of the opposite sex.

The rules already address this; here's the relevant quote from CAPR 52-10:

Ensure that at least two "approved" senior members are present at all overnight cadet activities. Encourage at least two senior members to be present at all cadet activities (with the exception of chaplain counseling or cadet orientation flights).  This policy is for the protection of the senior members as well as the cadets.

The clear intent is that there should be no one-to-one contact between cadets and seniors, regardless of gender.  Find another senior, find another cadet, or cancel the activity.

?!?!

Two seniors are only required during OVERNIGHT activities.   If the "clear intent" was to prohibit one-to-one contact between Cadets and Seniors, the portion you cited wouldn't differentiate between ENSURE and ENCOURAGE as pertains to overnight versus non-overnight activities.

Also, it is NOT wrong for a senior to be alone with cadets at a non-overnight cadet activity, but he needs to be aware of the situation and be careful that he is never alone with any one cadet apart from the rest of the group.  Remember, the regs say that mixed-gender activities are NOT a problem, but being alone with a cadet is.

You are failing to differentiate between what is a problem (where the regs are violated) and what is not common sense (ensuring that multiple people are present whenever possible to avoid or mitigate potential problems).     There are no absolutes here, except for what the regs REQUIRE.    Sometimes circumstances dictate that you must be alone with a cadet - opposite sex or not; what is more important than the actual list of personnel at a given location at a given time is the CONDUCT of said members.  

If you do nothing wrong and a cadet decides to file a bogus charge, that cadet could do so even if another SM is present and simply claim that the other SM is covering it up.   For that matter, any cadet can CLAIM you were alone -- even if you weren't.   As long as you can't account for your own whereabouts..   So the next time you take a long sojurn to the restroom, just remember, a cadet might have it in for you...  

When you think about it, there's a million ways that this can play out, and you can't prevent everything.  
So do the right thing, obey the regs, be smart about things, and you are likely to go through your entire CAP career without any problems.  

Where's that horse-beating graphic when you need it?

[JAFO78]

We had a cadets mom who joined when he did, so when our females went she did too. It did make it easier.

This was CYA, BIMD as a Senior er Officer. 

[tjaxe]

I doubt that any are closet lesbians or cougars on the prowl.

Dude, if you have any "closet lesbians" in your squadon or group I HIGHLY doubt it's 'cause they want to wrangle some female cadets.  If you've got "closet lesbians" it's most likely because, in this messed up climate, they are scared of being CONSIDERED as possible molesters!!!!!  While no gender is absolved from pure indecency with our children EVER, please DO NOT flame "closet" lesbians as being on the prowl.  If there's anyone I know who protects our young (in general)... it's women -- no matter their orientation!

[Stonewall]

We had a cadets mom who joined when he did, so when our females went she did too. It did make it easier.

Call me crazy, but I still try to steer away from hiring recruiting parents.  I have 10 negative experiences for every 1 good one.

[Eclipse]

We had a cadets mom who joined when he did, so when our females went she did too. It did make it easier.

Call me crazy, but I still try to steer away from hiring recruiting parents.  I have 10 negative experiences for every 1 good one.

One of the major risks with parent members is they tend to be there only for their kids, and when the kid cycles out, they leave too. Get too many of them cycling out at the same time and it can devastate the unit.  I've seen units go from being Spaatz factories one year to being at risk for losing their charter the next because even though it was a composite squadron there was no proper senior program to speak of and all the parents left when their kids left.

That doesn't mean we should not seek out more parental involvement, but Unit CC's need to be careful about the mix of parents vs. "regular members".

[JoeTomasone]

If there's anyone I know who protects our young (in general)... it's women -- no matter their orientation!

I could post links to news stories of female schoolteachers right here in FL -- probably a dozen if I really tried -- who were caught molesting students.   

[Pingree1492]

PCR and RMR both had supplements that required a female senior present for pretty much any activity involving female cadets.  I don't know if these supplements are still in effect because they are not listed on the websites anymore. 

You're right, its no longer posted on the webpage.  Looks like the content/layout has changed since the last time I was there, maybe they just haven't moved it over yet.  Or (one can hope) that as the RMR Region Commander just changed that particular supplement will no longer be in place.

I never agreed with the rule as a female cadet, and it has created some last-minute scrambles as a senior in the program as well.  Actually, there was a time in my squadron when we had the opposite of the common problem, in that we only had two female seniors to supervise a bunch of male cadets, we had to scramble to find a male senior to come to overnight activities.

It comes down to using your discretion and common sense when selecting members and administering the program, as well as building a good relationship with your cadets and parents.  Male seniors aren't automatically child molesters just for being male, or even unqualified/unable to deal with "female issues".  I had an awesome male Cross Country and Track Coach that was able to deal with those sorts of things better than a lot of female coaches I've had.  We just need to be responsible adults, and willing to take action when and if it might be required.

[Stonewall]

I am very relieved to learn that I was given bum info and the issue at hand is NOT a squadron or squadron commander policy as originally believed, but a wing policy set forth by the previous wing commander from 2005.

The Florida Wing Cadet Protection Policy will be as follows:

1. In accordance with the provisions in CAPR 52-10 [22 DEC 03], two "approved" senior
members are required to be in attendance for all cadet programs or activities that involve cadets and
that include overnight periods. Regardless of gender, it is highly desired that one of the "approved"
senior members in attendance at the event be of the same gender as each cadet at the activity.

2. For all activities, cadets and seniors should be "buddied" with another member to help provide
protection, guidance and caring. This action should occur at the earliest stages of the activity.

3. If an activity begins without the intent of being an overnight activity (i.e.: missions) then the
policy stated in paragraph one (1) should be adhered to as closely as possible.

4. Parental involvement as outlined in CAPR 52-10 [22 DEC 03] is to be accomplished on a
regular basis.

5. When it is believed that a violation of the Cadet Protection Policy has occurred, contact
directly with the Wing Commander needs to immediate and in accordance with CAPR 52-10 [22 DEC
03].

6. Contact points for the Wing Commander are: 954-261-9779 <= Primary, or 954-438-5051 at
home.

7. This letter is to be posted on all Unit Bulletin Boards and briefed to all unit members every 90
days. Documentation of this event is to be made on the unit sign-in sheets.


__________________________
Florida Wing Commander
Subject: Cadet Protection Policy for Florida Wing Date: 09 Dec 05
Directed To: All FLWG Members PL No.: 05-03
Florida Wing Headquarters

Notice how it says "Regardless of gender, it is highly desired that one of the "approved" senior members in attendance at the event be of the same gender as each cadet at the activity."  Key words are "highly desired".  I would agree with this, it is the ideal situation.  But am I wrong in think that because it is desired, it does not make it mandatory?

[BillB]

I asked "that" Wing CC about that. it is NOT mandatory.

[Stonewall]

I asked "that" Wing CC about that. it is NOT mandatory.

Even without asking, it clearly states "highly desirable", not mandatory.

[ADCAPer]

I am very relieved to learn that I was given bum info and the issue at hand is NOT a squadron or squadron commander policy as originally believed, but a wing policy set forth by the previous wing commander from 2005.

This is just another example of a Wing HQ staffer somewhere neglecting to do their homework first; there's no reason to implement a policy to augment a regulation that is already addressing the issue, especially when the regulation doesn't allow unapproved supplements to begin with.

[Eclipse]

I asked "that" Wing CC about that. it is NOT mandatory.

Even without asking, it clearly states "highly desirable", not mandatory.

...much like "should" vs. "shall" or "will", something that gets staffers tied in knows all the time, especially come SUI time.

[Stonewall]

The Wing Policy Letter that I posted above was from 2006 and referenced a CAPR from 2 versions ago (2003).  There has since been a revised 2006 and 2008 version.

On the 2008 version of 52-10, like it states on most regs, it says:

Supersedes CAPR 52-10, 11 January 2006.

How does this affect policy letters?  Would this void the previous wing commander's policy?  Wouldn't an updated letter need to be published by the current commander and be relevant to the new CAPR?

[NIN]

How does this affect policy letters?  Would this void the previous wing commander's policy?  Wouldn't an updated letter need to be published by the current commander and be relevant to the new CAPR?

Kirt, the guardhouse lawyer in me says that if you were operating under 52-10 as written and someone tried to hammer you for not following the (now two revs out of date) wing policy, it would be a simple matter to squash that kind of thing as being unenforceable and out of date in any case.

As a rule, 52-10 is completely operative for me.  When I was in MI Wing, we were rather *serious* about the CPP.  Like militant serious.  Show up in my current wing and *literally* the first thing the local unit commander asks me is if I can give a cadet who lived about 1/2 mile from me a ride home from the meeting.  I refused on the grounds that it would violate the Cadet Protection Program.  This gentleman has the audacity to tell me that it was OK, since a) He had the cadet's mom's permission for him to be solo with another SM; b) he did it all the time; and c) the reg doesn't apply after the meeting.  I continued to flatly refuse and he got pretty irate with me that I wouldn't do what he was asking.

It seems to be always OK with mom and dad, right up to the point where the adult does that really, really, really bad thing with their son or daughter that they're suddenly not OK with.. Well, darn it, I'm not falling into that trickbag. No way.

Frankly, I adhere to a "no-lone-zone" rule with cadets, and if I do have to talk to a cadet "privately" I do so in full view of everybody else.  (thankfully, I don't have an office, so no worries there.)

[NIN]

I was the encampment commander once when we were short a female TAC officer.  We had female staff members, but no TAC.  (the officer who had been our expected TAC decided not to come to encampment that year, but only changed her mind about 3 weeks out...)

My wing commander at the time actually suggested that one of our courses of action was to cancel encampment, since everybody knows you're supposed to have a female officer present when you have females at an activity, according to the regs.  (*sigh* I had to school this guy -once-again- about the regs and why you can't discriminate on the basis of sex)

Thankfully, we wound up with two female officers who volunteered to help out, but one could only be there the first four days, the other could only be there the last four days.  Problem solved.  Plus, I had enough senior female cadets, including the cadet commander, and my other officers who were female, that we could have made it work out if we'd had to.

What a joke.

[RiverAux]

How does this affect policy letters?  Would this void the previous wing commander's policy?  Wouldn't an updated letter need to be published by the current commander and be relevant to the new CAPR?

IIRC, whenever a regulation is updated, all supplements (and presumably policy letters) based on the old supplement need to be updated within some time frame. 

[PHall]

How does this affect policy letters?  Would this void the previous wing commander's policy?  Wouldn't an updated letter need to be published by the current commander and be relevant to the new CAPR?

IIRC, whenever a regulation is updated, all supplements (and presumably policy letters) based on the old supplement need to be updated within some time frame. 

IIRC when there is a command change all policy letters are supposed to be reviewed by the incoming commander so they can decide which to keep and which to chuck.

[RiverAux]

Okay, I took the hit and looked it up in 5-4:

When the parent publication of a supplement or OI is revised/reissued, commanders must ensure the supplement or OI is revised and re-approved, if required, or rescinded with 6 months of the new parent publication's issue.

So, you don't necessarily have to reissue the supplement unless the parent publication changed something that your supplement was addressing, or probably if they changed the paragraph numbering or something else that made it difficult to tell exactly what part of the parent regulation was being supplemented.