Cadet Protection

[RADIOMAN015]

Even if you are not directly involved with cadets, my advice is to be vigilant that your unit's adults are complying with the provisions of CAPR 52-10, Cadet Protection Policy.  ANY deviation should send up a red flag to take a closer look.

During my AF career I witnessed the family devastation (including my direct supervisor (who worked for this commander) and one of my peers in the same unit)  that occurred when an active duty, full colonel commander sexually abused over one dozen (about 15, trying to find the article in my files) children, BEFORE he was caught and brought to justice (rotted away in jail).

So don't let your guard down and each of you will have to decide whether you want to go to local law enforcement authorities without even tipping off anyone in Civil Air Patrol, so they can run a discrete investigation.   I know in the example above (whether the sexual abuse mostly occurred off base), one of the parents (BTW who's husband was deployed overseas on a contingency mission at the time) went directly to the Sheriff's office that had special investigators for these type of crimes and the multi location abuse unfolded quickly.
RM 
 

[EMT-83]

I'm confused.

Are you saying in one breath that we should follow 52-10 to the letter, and then saying that we should ignore it and run a "discrete investigation"?

[Eclipse]

The regs are clear as to what members who suspect abuse are to do.  If you value your membership you will comply.

Anyone in my AOR who reported what they suspected to be abuse to local law enforcement, without also complying with CAP internal reporting
regulations, would be a former member.

The rules are in place for a reason, not the least of which is protecting everyone involved, including the corporation, and most importantly, the accused.  This sort of accusation will haunt someone for the rest of their life, unfounded or not, and should never, ever, be taken lightly.

Per 52-10:
1. Reporting Requirements. Senior members, cadets, and parents/guardians should immediately report incidents of observed or suspected abuse to the unit commander or commander at the next higher level of command. Whenever a commander has received a report of abuse, suspects that abuse has occurred or may occur, or believes there is an appearance of impropriety in the nature of cadet abuse by a member of CAP, the commander will immediately suspend the member from CAP and will report the abuse as follows: (see CAP Regulation 52-10 for specific actions required)

d. Reporting to State Agency. There may be a mandatory requirement to report certain types of physical, sexual or emotional abuse to a designated state agency. Requirements vary from state to state. Members having knowledge of abuse must follow reporting requirements under their state's laws. Your wing legal officer can help you to know what laws apply.

[Eclipse]

I would again suggest you spend some time with the term "collateral damage".

During my AF career I witnessed the family devastation (including my direct supervisor (who worked for this commander) and one of my peers in the same unit)  that occurred when an active duty, full colonel commander sexually abused over one dozen (about 15, trying to find the article in my files) children, BEFORE he was caught and brought to justice (rotted away in jail).

Your personal experience in the USAF a million years ago has absolutely nothing to do with CAP.  Nothing, nada.  No connection.
Yet thanks to the good people at Bing and AOL, people coming to this board out of context will get the joy of reading your post and can make inferences that this is an issue related to CAP.

Hint:  It isn't, especially in the random way it was dropped here.

[Spaceman3750]

I am a court mandated reporter, which means that I am required to report suspected abuse to DCFS. My commander is still getting called right before that though, just like my boss would get the first heads up at work.

[EMT-83]

Being a mandated reporter (which many of us are), doesn't present any conflict with CAP regulations.

[lordmonar]

In my humber non-lawyer opinion.....we are all manditory reporters.

We report it up our chain of command per regulations and the file a report with the appropriate agency per laws and good citezenship.

[EMT-83]

Mandatory reporter - someone who can face criminal charges for failure to report certain incidents such as child or elder abuse, as defined by state statutes.

CAP regulations are no less important, but definitely different.

[RADIOMAN015]

The regs are clear as to what members who suspect abuse are to do.  If you value your membership you will comply.

Anyone in my AOR who reported what they suspected to be abuse to local law enforcement, without also complying with CAP internal reporting
regulations, would be a former member.

The rules are in place for a reason, not the least of which is protecting everyone involved, including the corporation, and most importantly, the accused.  This sort of accusation will haunt someone for the rest of their life, unfounded or not, and should never, ever, be taken lightly.

Per 52-10:
1. Reporting Requirements. Senior members, cadets, and parents/guardians should immediately report incidents of observed or suspected abuse to the unit commander or commander at the next higher level of command. Whenever a commander has received a report of abuse, suspects that abuse has occurred or may occur, or believes there is an appearance of impropriety in the nature of cadet abuse by a member of CAP, the commander will immediately suspend the member from CAP and will report the abuse as follows: (see CAP Regulation 52-10 for specific actions required)

d. Reporting to State Agency. There may be a mandatory requirement to report certain types of physical, sexual or emotional abuse to a designated state agency. Requirements vary from state to state. Members having knowledge of abuse must follow reporting requirements under their state's laws. Your wing legal officer can help you to know what laws apply.

I doubt that CAP overall as an organization has significant cadet protection issues, as far as it relates to senior members mistreating cadets in any way.  Personally, I'd be very careful about accusing anyone of anything, especially any sexual abuse of a minor.

I would think the specific circumstances could dictate when or even IF a member reports anything to CAP on sexual abuse type incidents, rather than reporting directly (first) to appropriate law enforcement.  Also it's 'fantasy' to think that a non CAP member (e.g. parents) can be required to reporting anything to CAP, BUT they can encouraged to do this. 

BTW I think it is the 'victim(s)' that need(s) to be protected first, rather than ANYONE else   
RM

[JC004]

...
BTW I think it is the 'victim(s)' that need(s) to be protected first, rather than ANYONE else   
RM

There isn't always a victim, or perhaps the victim isn't who you think.  You don't get to unilaterally decide who the victim is.  That's the point of due process.

[Short Field]

That is why you report it to people who can actually do something about it. 

[Eclipse]

I would think the specific circumstances could dictate when or even IF a member reports anything to CAP on sexual abuse type incidents, rather than reporting directly (first) to appropriate law enforcement.  Also it's 'fantasy' to think that a non CAP member (e.g. parents) can be required to reporting anything to CAP, BUT they can encouraged to do this. 

No, the regulations dictate the actions and the reporting chain, assuming again, that you value your membership.  People who do whatever the "situation dictates", in conflict with the regs, find themselves to be quickly ex-members.

We have no control over what non-members do, and therefore there's no point in discussing it like it was relevant.

[Spaceman3750]

In my humber non-lawyer opinion.....we are all manditory reporters.

We report it up our chain of command per regulations and the file a report with the appropriate agency per laws and good citezenship.

But, as EMT-83 pointed out, the difference between your typical bystander and a mandated reporter (typically someone who works in a school, hospital, etc.) is that while the bystander is only bound to report by their moral compass, mandated reporters like EMT-83 and I can go to jail for failing to report to the designated state agency (regardless of who in CAP I report it to).

If I am an unfortunate witness or become aware of abuse, CAP will get the first call (if for nothing else than to get the member suspended and removed from the picture), but the state is getting the very next call, because I would much rather be an ex-member than inmate number 22345.

[Eclipse]

22345?  You think you're going in A-Block?  I don't think so newb!

First or second call would not matter to me, only that both calls are made, and that you protect yourself and the corporation as mandated and reasonable by the regs. 

RM wants it to be OK to make a double-secret call to the local 5-0 and not say anything to CAP.

[RADIOMAN015]

22345?  You think you're going in A-Block?  I don't think so newb!

First or second call would not matter to me, only that both calls are made, and that you protect yourself and the corporation as mandated and reasonable by the regs. 

RM wants it to be OK to make a double-secret call to the local 5-0 and not say anything to CAP.

So Eclipse you would agree that the regulation ONLY applies to anything that happens at  CAP sponsored activities, correct    IF it's not a a CAP sponsored activity, even though it could involve CAP members, it's not within the reach & scope of the regulation and thus there's NO requirement to report this to anyone in CAP
RM

[Eclipse]

22345?  You think you're going in A-Block?  I don't think so newb!

First or second call would not matter to me, only that both calls are made, and that you protect yourself and the corporation as mandated and reasonable by the regs. 

RM wants it to be OK to make a double-secret call to the local 5-0 and not say anything to CAP.

So Eclipse you would agree that the regulation ONLY applies to anything that happens at  CAP sponsored activities, correct   IF it's not a a CAP sponsored activity, even though it could involve CAP members, it's not within the reach & scope of the regulation and thus there's NO requirement to report this to anyone in CAP

No.

The regulations make no such distinction.  Members are always within the reach and scope of our regulations.
What I said was that we have no recourse or control over non-members, parents or otherwise.

[Hardshell Clam]

1. Know CAP policy.
2. Know your state law.
3. Understand that following CAP regs WILL NOT protect you from state laws concerning reporting.
4. Understand that following local law WILL NOT protect you from CAP regs concerning reporting.
Bottom line: see items 1 and 2 above and when in any doubt, REPORT and document it.

Do the right thing and protect the child and let "valuing your membership" be secondary, then seek legal help if some CAP brass moves towards making you an "ex-member".

[Eclipse]

Do the right thing and protect the child and let "valuing your membership" be secondary, then seek legal help if some CAP brass moves towards making you an "ex-member".

If you follow the regs properly, you'll be doing both and won't need to worry about "legal protection from the brass" (whoever that is).

[Hardshell Clam]

Hey Eclipse, how about giving the "brass" thing a rest or must you always be be contrary?

[ol'fido]

In my humber non-lawyer opinion.....we are all manditory reporters.

We report it up our chain of command per regulations and the file a report with the appropriate agency per laws and good citezenship.

But, as EMT-83 pointed out, the difference between your typical bystander and a mandated reporter (typically someone who works in a school, hospital, etc.) is that while the bystander is only bound to report by their moral compass, mandated reporters like EMT-83 and I can go to jail for failing to report to the designated state agency (regardless of who in CAP I report it to).

If I am an unfortunate witness or become aware of abuse, CAP will get the first call (if for nothing else than to get the member suspended and removed from the picture), but the state is getting the very next call, because I would much rather be an ex-member than inmate number 22345.

Actually, Spaceman, you'll be M22345, S22345, or R22345. The R & Cs are issuing Inmate #s beginning with those 3 letters right now after years of A,C,N,B, and K numbers. If you do fed time, I have no idea how they do their inmate #s.

[JayT]

Even if you are not directly involved with cadets, my advice is to be vigilant that your unit's adults are complying with the provisions of CAPR 52-10, Cadet Protection Policy.  ANY deviation should send up a red flag to take a closer look.

During my AF career I witnessed the family devastation (including my direct supervisor (who worked for this commander) and one of my peers in the same unit)  that occurred when an active duty, full colonel commander sexually abused over one dozen (about 15, trying to find the article in my files) children, BEFORE he was caught and brought to justice (rotted away in jail).

So don't let your guard down and each of you will have to decide whether you want to go to local law enforcement authorities without even tipping off anyone in Civil Air Patrol, so they can run a discrete investigation.   I know in the example above (whether the sexual abuse mostly occurred off base), one of the parents (BTW who's husband was deployed overseas on a contingency mission at the time) went directly to the Sheriff's office that had special investigators for these type of crimes and the multi location abuse unfolded quickly.
RM 

I would just.........love to spend a day with you to see what goes through your head. Love it.

[Short Field]

The regulations make no such distinction.  Members are always within the reach and scope of our regulations.
What I said was that we have no recourse or control over non-members, parents or otherwise.

I can see the headlines now:  "CAP expels member for reporting child abuser to police".

[Ned]

The regulations make no such distinction.  Members are always within the reach and scope of our regulations.
What I said was that we have no recourse or control over non-members, parents or otherwise.

I can see the headlines now:  "CAP expels member for reporting child abuser to police".

Sigh. 

As usual, I hate to spoil a traditional CT furball, but actually reading the regulation reveals that there is nothing that discourages reporting suspected abuse to the authorities. Indeed, it specifically discusses reporting to the authorities in paragraph 1d.

IOW, it is perfectly fine to report a matter to the police AND your commander in an appropriate situation. 

[LGM30GMCC]

If you wind up being 24601 though, remember when you get out you have to become the mayor of a struggling factory town.

[RADIOMAN015]

The regulations make no such distinction.  Members are always within the reach and scope of our regulations.
What I said was that we have no recourse or control over non-members, parents or otherwise.

I can see the headlines now:  "CAP expels member for reporting child abuser to police".

Sigh. 

As usual, I hate to spoil a traditional CT furball, but actually reading the regulation reveals that there is nothing that discourages reporting suspected abuse to the authorities. Indeed, it specifically discusses reporting to the authorities in paragraph 1d.

IOW, it is perfectly fine to report a matter to the police AND your commander in an appropriate situation.

Ned, my emphasis on your reply.  Surely, one's personal level of knowledge on a cadet protection policy regulation violation(s) will dictate WHO gets notified at WHAT point.    Hearing something through the "grapevine" is definitely just a unit commander type informal notification/talk.    Directly observing a violation of criminal law (not CAP regulation) is an immediate law enforcement issue and one is going to comply with what law enforcement (and the District Attorney) advises.     

I know that having an open dialogue with parents sure can help a unit, if the cadet goes homes and makes a statement to the parent about something that occurred at a CAP meeting.  Example:    Interpretations of 'good touch' versus 'bad touch' is defined by the receiver of the 'touch', and the VERY wise thing to do by any senior adult member is the ONLY physical contact touching is to basically shake the cadet's hand for a job well done.  (and in this specific example an ill informed male senior member basically just quickly patted the male cadet's chest area for a job well done).

Also I don't think the policy is strong enough about adult senior members contact with cadets at NON CAP activities.   There's a good possibility that the lines can get blurred in a parents' view when the cadet/teenager says (What I've seen as an example) ---  Cadet says "I'm meeting (or he's picking us up) Lt X from CAP is bringing us/going with us for a hike or to a sports game, etc" WHEN IT IS NOT a CAP sanctioned activity.

Surely some senior members can end up in a cadet protection "mine field", even IF they have good intentions and are very good people (not criminals) when they do 'dumb' things.
RM                             

[RADIOMAN015]

...
BTW I think it is the 'victim(s)' that need(s) to be protected first, rather than ANYONE else   
RM

There isn't always a victim, or perhaps the victim isn't who you think.  You don't get to unilaterally decide who the victim is.  That's the point of due process.

For the most part you are a cooked goose IF there's every a charge brought against you for any sexual misconduct with a child/teenager.  Relatively recently I knew an individual "victim", (only through a non profit organization I belonged to) who finally took a plea deal based upon legal advice, and of course available money to defend himself.   I personally thought it was a setup against him by the two related kids (but unrelated to him) involved.   BUT again in my ancient history experience, I never would have ever thought that a military hospital commander (who was a pediatrician by specialty) would have been sexually molesting young boys at his off base residence.       

In CAP the Cadet Protection Regulation/Policy is the MINIMUM that has to be complied with.  Each senior member involved with cadets may very well want to add some additional protection (e.g. female member present at any overnight activity with cadet females attending), as well as have an acceptable comfort level with the other senior members assisting with cadet supervision at an activity.

The way I see it, if a senior member is naive, they can become a 'victim'

BTW other than directly observing someone involved in sexual misconduct with a child, I don't see myself going to law enforcement with any "hunches".  IF someone (e.g. a parent of a CAP cadet) approached me about something happening at a CAP activity, I would listen and depending upon what they said "probably" would suggest they talk with the senior leadership (commander) in the squadron first.           

RM     

[sarmed1]

Also I don't think the policy is strong enough about adult senior members contact with cadets at NON CAP activities.   There's a good possibility that the lines can get blurred in a parents' view when the cadet/teenager says (What I've seen as an example) ---  Cadet says "I'm meeting (or he's picking us up) Lt X from CAP is bringing us/going with us for a hike or to a sports game, etc" WHEN IT IS NOT a CAP sanctioned activity.

CAP isnt going to (likely) tell you what you can and can not do in your non CAP time; however its generally a good practice to follow the following rule/guide:  Unless you happen to be family, if you are a senior member and you are doing any activity that you are associating with cadets, its a CAP activity (if it doesnt meet some sort of approved CAP activity guideline....you shouldnt be there or be there with them)

just sayin'

mk

[Ned]

   Surely, one's personal level of knowledge on a cadet protection policy regulation violation(s) will dictate WHO gets notified at WHAT point.   

No.  Your responsibilities lie in what the regulation says, not what you think it says.

Hearing something through the "grapevine" is definitely just a unit commander type informal notification/talk.    Directly observing a violation of criminal law (not CAP regulation) is an immediate law enforcement issue and one is going to comply with what law enforcement (and the District Attorney) advises. 

I'm not sure I concur here.

I can easily imagine situations where I might notfy law enforcement (as an elected official, I am a mandatory reporter in California) even if I only heard about it on the grapevine.  If If I reasonably believe a situation may have occurred, I will take action.

Similarly, I can imagine a lot of situations where I observe a criminal law violation by a CAP member and would not call the cops.  (Littering, 66 on the freeway, camping without a permit, etc.)  I would take appropriate action ("pick that up," "hey, slow down a little," or "let's drive to the Ranger station and make sure we are OK.")

Example:    Interpretations of 'good touch' versus 'bad touch' is defined by the receiver of the 'touch',

Really?  Why do you say that?

Also I don't think the policy is strong enough about adult senior members contact with cadets at NON CAP activities.   There's a good possibility that the lines can get blurred in a parents' view when the cadet/teenager says (What I've seen as an example) ---  Cadet says "I'm meeting (or he's picking us up) Lt X from CAP is bringing us/going with us for a hike or to a sports game, etc" WHEN IT IS NOT a CAP sanctioned activity.

I'm not sure I understand your concern here.  Improper fraternization is strictly prohibited, 24/7.  "On or off duty," regardless or whether it is an authorized CAP activity.  See CAPR 52-16, para 2-3.

But we do not prohibit all possible contact between cadets and seniors outside of activities.  You don't have to take the side exit from the mall when you see a cadet coming.  Senior members who are teachers are allowed to have cadets in their Calculus classes.  The chaplain can still give a sermon on Sunday morning, even if a cadet happens to be part of the congregation.  And yes, sometimes a senior and a cadet can be at the same baseball game without violating the rules.  Indeed a single senior can take a group of cadets hiking, and it is entirely proper withing the regulations.

Surely some senior members can end up in a cadet protection "mine field", even IF they have good intentions and are very good people (not criminals) when they do 'dumb' things.
RM                           

Well, the "dumb things" I saw in reports and investigations that prompted me to write the fraternization portion of the regulation mostly included 30 year old seniors "dating" 14 year old cadets.

It is easy for certain kinds of  people to imagine "mine fields" even when there are none.  I don't think there is much we can do about that, other than to continue to educate them and guide them.

But the overwhelming majority of seniors involved in the CP are wonderful assets who challenge, mentor, and lead cadets in a vigorous and successful program.  And these seniors have had our training, read the regs, and bring a wealth of common sense and experience.

God bless 'em.

[RiverAux]

So, lets take what appears to be Radioman's premise at face value - that there might be some CP issue that you observe that you then report to the police who for some reason order you not to report it through your CAP chain of command in order to avoid compromising their investigation.  And lets assume that they have some authority to make that order.  So, later on CAP finds out that you knew about this incident but did not report it to them. 

Radioman -- are you really saying that the member would be kicked out of CAP and that if he chose to appeal the 2b that the MARB would uphold it even though the person was acting under orders from civil authorities?  That is just so far-fetched as to be unbelievable and totally not worth worrying about.

If that is really a concern, then you must also be worrying about how CAP will implement our cadet protection policy when the Martians without either male or female sexes join CAP and encampment commanders need to figure out bunking arrangements.

[PHall]

Radioman, I have a surefire solution to your CAP "problems". Get out of CAP.

You seem to have nothing but problems here, so to reduce the stress in your life you need to get out of CAP.

You good health could be at stake here!

[Major Lord]

My youngest son ( not the CAP former Cadet) attended an elementary school where the "unwritten" policy was that any accusation made against a teacher would first be "investigated" by the Administration, even in the event of witnessed assault. Strangely, when my son was knocked to the ground by a teacher in front of about 30 witnesses ( and since my son is a lot like me, people want to hit him quite often) the Administration found no need to report the witnessed ( but probably deserved) "child abuse".  In fact, after diligent questioning of students and teachers, no one could identify a single such incident being reported to the police; Right up until the time a P.E. Coach was identified as having molested several female children, a fact that it seems in retrospect, was well known to the student body, but of which the Administration, with all their scrupulous "investigations" never caught the slightest whiff.

From the standpoint of organizational dynamics, its no surprise that an organizations' policies are primarily designed for the protection of the organization, and the identification of possible apparent criminal activities might be tacitly "discouraged", being sold to the members from the standpoint of fairness. In fact, a single Cadet could, as I understand the Regulation, shut down an entire encampment by claiming that he was forced to play "naked movie star" with the entire Senior Member Staff, who would, by regulation, have to be immediately suspended. There is no provision I am aware of that would exempt this, save a very rapid and despository investigation conducted at the appropriate level. A senior member who sees an activity that he knows or suspects is a crime should have no fear of repercussions; in fact, anyone discouraging him should be drawn,quartered, and executed by musket fire, as required by CAP regulations ( Okay, that Reg is way in the back of the book, but I am pretty sure its there.......)  The idea of even caring about one's own CAP "career" is preposterous when weighed against the proposition of harm to a child ( or even a S/M, although we probably don't have a legal obligation to report abuse of S/M's so feel free to dual and brawl to your hearts content) If in doubt, call the police; They will understand the elements of an actual crime, versus some random S/M's view of what constitutes "child abuse". Heck, I have met parents of Cadets who thought that encampment in and of itself was child abuse. ( Only if performed correctly)

Major Lord

[RADIOMAN015]

Radioman, I have a surefire solution to your CAP "problems". Get out of CAP.

You seem to have nothing but problems here, so to reduce the stress in your life you need to get out of CAP.

You good health could be at stake here!

Overall I like CAP and do what I can within my limitations.

As a 'volunteer' in CAP, i decide what I do (am comfortable with) and what I won't do (what I am not comfortable with).   There are other adults in CAP units that I am familiar with, who do put restrictions on whether they will participate or not (e.g. overnight camp outs with females, must have a female senior member present).   Why take ANY chances    I think most "smart" adults in any volunteer program are going to run a self risk management using their own criteria.  We aren't getting paid and we don't need the hassle IF something goes astray.       
RM

[jimmydeanno]

There are other adults in CAP units that I am familiar with, who do put restrictions on whether they will participate or not (e.g. overnight camp outs with females, must have a female senior member present).   Why take ANY chances  

These types of senior members are the ones that don't have any business working with cadets in the first place.  Making up rules like this only serve to open themselves up to other issues as they relate to equal opportunity and our non-discrimination policies.  Not holding activities, that you can otherwise staff under the actual rules imposed, because a female wants to participate is wrong and contrary to policies we have in place.

[Eclipse]

We aren't getting paid

Wait, what?

[JayT]

Radioman, I have a surefire solution to your CAP "problems". Get out of CAP.

You seem to have nothing but problems here, so to reduce the stress in your life you need to get out of CAP.

You good health could be at stake here!

Overall I like CAP and do what I can within my limitations.

As a 'volunteer' in CAP, i decide what I do (am comfortable with) and what I won't do (what I am not comfortable with).   There are other adults in CAP units that I am familiar with, who do put restrictions on whether they will participate or not (e.g. overnight camp outs with females, must have a female senior member present).   Why take ANY chances    I think most "smart" adults in any volunteer program are going to run a self risk management using their own criteria.  We aren't getting paid and we don't need the hassle IF something goes astray.       
RM

No great loss.

[RADIOMAN015]

   Surely, one's personal level of knowledge on a cadet protection policy regulation violation(s) will dictate WHO gets notified at WHAT point.   

No.  Your responsibilities lie in what the regulation says, not what you think it says.

I think there's a distinct difference between it being at a CAP activity or not being at a CAP activity and the seriousness of it.   Lets face it the CAP regulation is to protect CAP Inc first and the member second.  Frankly, I think once a senior member makes a police report/written statement due to the directly observed criminal offense,  that's pretty much it, and making any more statements to CAP authorities is really not in the best interest of that member, who likely would be emotionally frail from the incident.   Perhaps, maybe a simple verbal statement by the CAP member with the knowledge, that senior member X was arrested by (and give the police departments name), for alleged (whatever)  is sufficient reporting under the regulation  

Hearing something through the "grapevine" is definitely just a unit commander type informal notification/talk.    Directly observing a violation of criminal law (not CAP regulation) is an immediate law enforcement issue and one is going to comply with what law enforcement (and the District Attorney) advises. 

I'm not sure I concur here.

I can easily imagine situations where I might notfy law enforcement (as an elected official, I am a mandatory reporter in California) even if I only heard about it on the grapevine.  If If I reasonably believe a situation may have occurred, I will take action.

Well Ned, IF I don't see something directly but hear about it (second hand information), my comfortable level would be to talk with our squadron commander first.   Law enforcement doesn't need to be brought into every situation that is a violation of the Cadet Protection Policy, but likely is not a criminal violation.
   

Similarly, I can imagine a lot of situations where I observe a criminal law violation by a CAP member and would not call the cops.  (Littering, 66 on the freeway, camping without a permit, etc.)  I would take appropriate action ("pick that up," "hey, slow down a little," or "let's drive to the Ranger station and make sure we are OK.")
Well, I don't play cop out on the roadways. (cause i'd have to make a citizens arrest when a state police car late for work passes me at 80 mph ).  HOWEVER, I am getting increasing concerned about my safety and other with those drivers texting while driving their vehicles.

Example:    Interpretations of 'good touch' versus 'bad touch' is defined by the receiver of the 'touch',

Really?  Why do you say that?

Well in my state the kids under the DARE program are pretty much indoctrinated on what is a 'bad touch', in the example, I gave,  the cadet talked to his parent on it, since he felt it was a 'bad touch'.  Fortunately, the rapport was there with that respective squadron commander.   Here again in the cadet protection training, perhaps that senior member lacked the full understanding.  (BTW, some of our friends that are teachers in the lower grades K to 3, and they were advised never to hug a kid, even to comfort them).       

Also I don't think the policy is strong enough about adult senior members contact with cadets at NON CAP activities.   There's a good possibility that the lines can get blurred in a parents' view when the cadet/teenager says (What I've seen as an example) ---  Cadet says "I'm meeting (or he's picking us up) Lt X from CAP is bringing us/going with us for a hike or to a sports game, etc" WHEN IT IS NOT a CAP sanctioned activity.

I'm not sure I understand your concern here.  Improper fraternization is strictly prohibited, 24/7.  "On or off duty," regardless or whether it is an authorized CAP activity.  See CAPR 52-16, para 2-3.

OK, here's another example:  A male senior member takes some older cadets to a hockey game, not as a CAP sponsored activity (the chain of command doesn't know about it).  They sit together, the senior member buys himself a beer while sitting with the cadets.   If he didn't buy himself a beer does it change the outcome    

But we do not prohibit all possible contact between cadets and seniors outside of activities.  You don't have to take the side exit from the mall when you see a cadet coming.  Senior members who are teachers are allowed to have cadets in their Calculus classes.  The chaplain can still give a sermon on Sunday morning, even if a cadet happens to be part of the congregation.  And yes, sometimes a senior and a cadet can be at the same baseball game without violating the rules.  Indeed a single senior can take a group of cadets hiking, and it is entirely proper withing the regulations.

Please see the example I gave above, where the senior member actually transports the cadets to a non CAP activity.   I do understand that that a chance meeting or association because of ones normally employment is not a violation of any policy.  Also though the hiking would be a CAP activity correct not just a senior member stating to a group of cadets, outside a meeting, hey lets go hiking, and there's no parental slips signed or no notifications (e.g. the chain of command doesn't even know it is going on) -- that's what I am talking about

Surely some senior members can end up in a cadet protection "mine field", even IF they have good intentions and are very good people (not criminals) when they do 'dumb' things.
RM                           

Well, the "dumb things" I saw in reports and investigations that prompted me to write the fraternization portion of the regulation mostly included 30 year old seniors "dating" 14 year old cadets.

It is easy for certain kinds of  people to imagine "mine fields" even when there are none.  I don't think there is much we can do about that, other than to continue to educate them and guide them.

Well again everyone has their own comfort level, and some folks that have been in the program a long time, are still very conservative, especially on overnight camping with both males & females,  (making sure a female senior member is present).    We all have our own personal risk avoidance standards.


But the overwhelming majority of seniors involved in the CP are wonderful assets who challenge, mentor, and lead cadets in a vigorous and successful program.  And these seniors have had our training, read the regs, and bring a wealth of common sense and experience.

God bless 'em.

I do agree with you overall on what you state above  :clap: :clap:, BUT a few have taken the training and really became paranoid, trust me, they were really spooked  , perhaps it was their personalities.  I haven't taken the specific CP training, and probably won't allocate my volunteer time to do this. 

Also thank you for your service to the cadet program.   Some of our squadron members have had a chance to meet you and have had very good things to say about you.  :angel:
RM

[Ned]

]I think there's a distinct difference between it being at a CAP activity or not being at a CAP activity and the seriousness of it.   

Strong non-concur on whether it took place at a CAP activity, but I suppose the "seriousness of it" will always be a factor.

For example, if you have reason to believe that a SM is improperly intimate with a cadet, it does not matter if that abuse took place at an "authorized CAP activity" or not.  You MUST report it per 52-10.  No grey area, no "maybes" - it must be reported and the commander must take the actions prescribed in the reg.

Lets face it the CAP regulation is to protect CAP Inc first and the member second. 

Again, strong non-concur.  The primary emphasis is protecting the cadet; as it turns out that protecting the cadet also protects the member.  It is simply two sides of the same coin.

Frankly, I think once a senior member makes a police report/written statement due to the directly observed criminal offense,  that's pretty much it, and making any more statements to CAP authorities is really not in the best interest of that member, who likely would be emotionally frail from the incident.

Umm, what?  Seriously?  Reporting a crime makes a typical senior member so "frail" that they cannot pick up the phone and call the commander to fill her/him in on the facts?

C'mon.

Well Ned, IF I don't see something directly but hear about it (second hand information), my comfortable level would be to talk with our squadron commander first.   Law enforcement doesn't need to be brought into every situation that is a violation of the Cadet Protection Policy, but likely is not a criminal violation.
   

I actually agree with you here.  You can always call a commander first and comply with the regulation.  And there are a bunch of CPP violations that would not amount to a violation of criminal law.

]OK, here's another example:  A male senior member takes some older cadets to a hockey game, not as a CAP sponsored activity (the chain of command doesn't know about it).  They sit together, the senior member buys himself a beer while sitting with the cadets.   If he didn't buy himself a beer does it change the outcome    

Well, first let me point out that whether a higher level commander knows about an activity is probably not the most important factor in determining whether a given activity is an official one or not.

It would be one of many factors, but not the most important one.

My squadron published a schedule, of course, like most units.  But if something came up suddenly, like a uniform run to the local AFB on Saturday, it was not necessary to brief the group commander and get some sort of permission.  I suppose a group or wing commander could make their own rules on this, but that would be local policy, not a National-type directive.

Nor do I think that whether a senior member has a beer (or commits some other potential violation of a regulation) is very helpful in determining whether a given activity is an officially authorized one.  That just invites mischief rather than provides clarity.

Please see the example I gave above, where the senior member actually transports the cadets to a non CAP activity.   I do understand that that a chance meeting or association because of ones normally employment is not a violation of any policy.  Also though the hiking would be a CAP activity correct not just a senior member stating to a group of cadets, outside a meeting, hey lets go hiking, and there's no parental slips signed or no notifications (e.g. the chain of command doesn't even know it is going on) -- that's what I am talking about

I don't think it is very helpful to try to determine whether any particular cadet/senior contact is an "official CAP activity" or not, since it does not change your reporting responsibilities either way under the regulations.

Or even to the authorities. 

Whether an particular action is a crime or not does not depend on whether it was an authorized activity or not.  Similarly, things like a senior improperly fraternizing with a cadet is equally improper whether is occurs at an authorized activity or not.

Well again everyone has their own comfort level, and some folks that have been in the program a long time, are still very conservative, especially on overnight camping with both males & females,  (making sure a female senior member is present).    We all have our own personal risk avoidance standards.

No doubt.  And I imagine some seniors are sexist and/or racist.  Would it be OK for them to use their "own personal avoidance standards" and not go on activities where that was a minority cadet?

Of course not.

But as others have pointed out, by declining to participate in activities like your hypothetical overnight without a senior female present, you inevitably wind up hurting the female cadets.  And society has a name for folks who discriminate against females. 

[RADIOMAN015]

Well again everyone has their own comfort level, and some folks that have been in the program a long time, are still very conservative, especially on overnight camping with both males & females,  (making sure a female senior member is present).    We all have our own personal risk avoidance standards.

No doubt.  And I imagine some seniors are sexist and/or racist.  Would it be OK for them to use their "own personal avoidance standards" and not go on activities where that was a minority cadet?

Of course not.

But as others have pointed out, by declining to participate in activities like your hypothetical overnight without a senior female present, you inevitably wind up hurting the female cadets.  And society has a name for folks who discriminate against females.

Ned, please note I stated above personal RISK avoidance standards.  IF a male member feels that he is at undue risk (with of course another male member present) without a female senior member being present (with cadet females attending), surely as a volunteer his concerns are important also   Likely the regulation was written to allow the most flexibility possible.   I don't think it's fair to pull the discrimination card on someone for this.  BTW, in the units I'm aware of, they all seem to be able to get a female senior member to attend these overnight type activities.

Also regarding reporting, IF you don't have permission slips signed by parents for a CAP activity away from your normal meeting location; it is not on the schedule; and the unit commander or deputy commander for cadets is not aware of it, than it is (per my limited knowledge) NOT a CAP activity.    HOWEVER, I do understand that ANY activity a CAP senior member engages with cadets in, due to their association in CAP, likely would still be considered by CAP to still be required to meet the cadet protection policy/regulation/guidelines.
RM           

[Ned]

Ned, please note I stated above personal RISK avoidance standards.  ( . . .)   I don't think it's fair to pull the discrimination card on someone for this.

There is really no question that the actions you propose have a significant discriminatory effect on female cadets.  And only female cadets.

Is "I'm just not comfortable working with female cadets" really any different than saying "I'm just not comfortable working with minority cadets?"

Really?

"I'd rather not work with cadets with any sort of diagnosed disability.  I'm just not comfortable doing so."

Tell me again, what's the difference?  I'm glad you can internally rationalize your actions to avoid having to think of yourself as a misogynist.

But I'll bet a lot of folks who dislike minorities can rationalize their actions (at least to themselves) as well.

However, the significant discriminatory effect on our cadets is exactly the same, no matter what you tell yourself the "real" reasons are.

[ol'fido]

So, it all boils down to being aware of what the regulations and CPP ACTUALLY say and NOT what we THINK they say. Apply the "Reasonable Man Doctrine" and use some common sense and you should be fine.

RM, playing the "what if...?" game is fine to a certain, reasonable point, but when you take it to a ridiculous extreme it will just make you paranoid. OR, in your case, more paranoid.

[RADIOMAN015]

Ned, please note I stated above personal RISK avoidance standards.  ( . . .)   I don't think it's fair to pull the discrimination card on someone for this.

There is really no question that the actions you propose have a significant discriminatory effect on female cadets.  And only female cadets.

Is "I'm just not comfortable working with female cadets" really any different than saying "I'm just not comfortable working with minority cadets?"

Really?

"I'd rather not work with cadets with any sort of diagnosed disability.  I'm just not comfortable doing so."

Tell me again, what's the difference?  I'm glad you can internally rationalize your actions to avoid having to think of yourself as a misogynist.

But I'll bet a lot of folks who dislike minorities can rationalize their actions (at least to themselves) as well.

However, the significant discriminatory effect on our cadets is exactly the same, no matter what you tell yourself the "real" reasons are.

Well, personally I don't volunteer for/attend any overnight cadet functions (whether it will be all males or a mix of male/females cadets), never have and likely NEVER will -- As a volunteer that is MY CHOICE.  As far as some other very dedicated senior members that support these activities, but want a female senior member present if there's female cadets attending, that's their choice for their comfort level, and I strongly support them in that.  Again female staffing hasn't been an issue and NO females have been excluded from any of our local units (or for that matter wing) cadet overnight activities. 

The volunteers I know that support the cadet program, are not discriminating against anyone.     
You know Ned it's VERY easy for senior member volunteers to "not be/become available" for these cadet overnight activities, especially IF they feel that their comfort level/concerns aren't addressed but are criticized as some sort of discrimination.  Fortunately locally and even at the wing level there seems to be sensitivity to do the right thing to support those volunteers.
RM 

[Ned]

The volunteers I know that support the cadet program, are not discriminating against anyone.

Sure, keep telling yourself that.

I hope it makes you feel better.

But even the younger cadets will be able to figure it out after a while. 

You know Ned it's VERY easy for senior member volunteers to "not be/become available" for these cadet overnight activities,( . . .)
RM

And I'm OK with that.  I'd rather have a senior member malinger and shirk their duties than expose cadets to bigoted behavior from seniors who are not "comfortable" working with minority or female cadets.

Really.

[Al Sayre]

I've never seen overnights with female cadets along as a problem.  When I was a Sq/CC we had several overnights with both male and female cadets present, and no female SM.  You simply lay out the ground rules.  We gave the females their own area, mostly for privacy, and made it clear that it was off limits to male cadets.  Beyond that everyone is treated the same. 

The cadets aren't little children, and if you don't think that you can trust them (within reason) then you shouldn't be taking them along on an overnight whether they are male or female.  Just because they're away from mom and dad and out in the woods doesn't mean they can't control their hormonal urges. 

If you're worried about female issues like menstruation etc. it's you that has a problem.  I've made a lot of midnight runs to the local mini-mart in my lifetime (yes, even from a few SAREX's), it's no big deal.  If the clerk (with the greasy hair and 15 face piercings) gives you crap tell him "at least I have someone to buy this for" and watch the look on his face , beside, do you really give a crap what he thinks? 

If you're worried about a malicious or vindictive CPP complaint, then you need to look at yourself and they way you interact with the cadets.  What reason would the cadet have for making one?  Just to get rid of you and ruin your life?  Very few people would go to that length for no reason.  However, if they think you are a food exit portal, and want to get rid of you, then you probably need to look inward...

[Major Lord]

I tip my King! Radioman has convinced me of the rectitude of his position. I have never felt comfortable attending RON activities with Ginger Kids ( Who I have heard from reliable sources, have no souls) and will no longer approach them within 25 feet, lest their freckly evil countenance envelope me in their penumbra of evil. I like this new paradigm of just following our irrationally fear-based prejudices, ( hereinafter referred to as "Comfort Level") it is a much simpler tool for decision making than critical thinking or rationality! Standby for my 93 thesis which I will nail to the door of Maxwell Alabama in the dead of night, denouncing other evil practices.

Major Lord

[NCRblues]

Ned, please note I stated above personal RISK avoidance standards.  ( . . .)   I don't think it's fair to pull the discrimination card on someone for this.

There is really no question that the actions you propose have a significant discriminatory effect on female cadets.  And only female cadets.

Is "I'm just not comfortable working with female cadets" really any different than saying "I'm just not comfortable working with minority cadets?"

Really?

"I'd rather not work with cadets with any sort of diagnosed disability.  I'm just not comfortable doing so."

Tell me again, what's the difference?  I'm glad you can internally rationalize your actions to avoid having to think of yourself as a misogynist.

But I'll bet a lot of folks who dislike minorities can rationalize their actions (at least to themselves) as well.

However, the significant discriminatory effect on our cadets is exactly the same, no matter what you tell yourself the "real" reasons are.

Well, personally I don't volunteer for/attend any overnight cadet functions (whether it will be all males or a mix of male/females cadets), never have and likely NEVER will -- As a volunteer that is MY CHOICE.  As far as some other very dedicated senior members that support these activities, but want a female senior member present if there's female cadets attending, that's their choice for their comfort level, and I strongly support them in that.  Again female staffing hasn't been an issue and NO females have been excluded from any of our local units (or for that matter wing) cadet overnight activities. 

The volunteers I know that support the cadet program, are not discriminating against anyone.     
You know Ned it's VERY easy for senior member volunteers to "not be/become available" for these cadet overnight activities, especially IF they feel that their comfort level/concerns aren't addressed but are criticized as some sort of discrimination.  Fortunately locally and even at the wing level there seems to be sensitivity to do the right thing to support those volunteers.
RM

You have never attended an encampment?? Or any overnight activity?

Again I have to ask, why are you even in CAP anymore?

[sarmed1]

You have never attended an encampment?? Or any overnight activity?

Again I have to ask, why are you even in CAP anymore?

Not that I agree with RM's stance on this, but just as a point of consideration; Cadet Programs is one part of CAP, despite the more common practice it is not the only part, people do join this program with no intention of ever working with cadets, and to some extent in practice never have to.  More over they may choose to limit their volunteerism to participation that does not include having to work with or generally supervise cadets.  (M or F)

However I would say that if you choose to work with one sex of cadets you have to work with both.  You are equally likely to get in trouble with both sex's at an activity ( ie Dude that creepy old senior member was looking at me in the shower when he was in to use the latrine..... vs that creepy old senior member touched my breasts.)

mk

[lordmonar]

I got nothing wrong with someone who does not want to work with cadets.......just like I got nothing wrong with people who don't want to do ES or AE.

But as Ned said.....we cannot discriminate against female cadets (or seniors).

[jimmydeanno]

The issue is larger than a female cadet at a cadet oriented activity.

Assume that the wing is involved in a mission that runs over multiple days, people are staying overnight, etc.  Two cadets, one male, one female, show up with relevant qualifications.  The guy at the door looks around and sees that there is no female senior member and tells the female cadet that he doesn't feel comfortable with working with her, sending her home, while welcoming the male cadet who arrived with her.

That senior member may be an "ES only" senior member, but to assume that you can deny a qualified member participation because you "never had the intent of working with cadets" is unrealistic and violates our policies.  There are a lot of senior members who's primary function doesn't involve working with cadets, but with half of our membership comprising them, there are chances that RM will end up in the comm room, "alone" with a cadet working the radios.

[lordmonar]

Granted.....and HE is free to sign out of the mission base and go home.  He is not free to send the cadet home.

[Eclipse]

Granted.....and HE is free to sign out of the mission base and go home.  He is not free to send the cadet home.

Unfortunately, though, in many cases that equals the same result - end of activity.

[lordmonar]

Granted.....and HE is free to sign out of the mission base and go home.  He is not free to send the cadet home.

Unfortunately, though, in many cases that equals the same result - end of activity.

If the mission fails because one person drops out.....then there are command issues beyond people's comfort level with the CPP.

[Eclipse]

I don't disagree whatsoever, but that doesn't change the practical reality of a small squadron with 2 active seniors and 1 female cadet.

[ol'fido]

Ned, please note I stated above personal RISK avoidance standards.  ( . . .)   I don't think it's fair to pull the discrimination card on someone for this.

There is really no question that the actions you propose have a significant discriminatory effect on female cadets.  And only female cadets.

Is "I'm just not comfortable working with female cadets" really any different than saying "I'm just not comfortable working with minority cadets?"

Really?

"I'd rather not work with cadets with any sort of diagnosed disability.  I'm just not comfortable doing so."

Tell me again, what's the difference?  I'm glad you can internally rationalize your actions to avoid having to think of yourself as a misogynist.

But I'll bet a lot of folks who dislike minorities can rationalize their actions (at least to themselves) as well.

However, the significant discriminatory effect on our cadets is exactly the same, no matter what you tell yourself the "real" reasons are.

Well, personally I don't volunteer for/attend any overnight cadet functions (whether it will be all males or a mix of male/females cadets), never have and likely NEVER will -- As a volunteer that is MY CHOICE.  As far as some other very dedicated senior members that support these activities, but want a female senior member present if there's female cadets attending, that's their choice for their comfort level, and I strongly support them in that.  Again female staffing hasn't been an issue and NO females have been excluded from any of our local units (or for that matter wing) cadet overnight activities. 

The volunteers I know that support the cadet program, are not discriminating against anyone.     
You know Ned it's VERY easy for senior member volunteers to "not be/become available" for these cadet overnight activities, especially IF they feel that their comfort level/concerns aren't addressed but are criticized as some sort of discrimination.  Fortunately locally and even at the wing level there seems to be sensitivity to do the right thing to support those volunteers.
RM

I was going to really respond to this statement, but every response I could come up with but this one VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV  violated the CT rules on profanity or personal conduct on the board.

ARE YOU FRIGGING KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DakRadz]

I wonder when RM hits the level of "too far."

Much like politicians (merely a comparison, let us leave specifics OFF of CT), RM has constantly pushed the envelope of accepted behavior on this site. Many people on this site see a post and think, "Oh, that's just RM being himself," yet when a new member (especially cadets)  posts or states something similar to ANY one of the many ridiculous claims RM has made, they are ripped, chewed, and thoroughly sure of what not to do here on our board.

Now, I don't necessarily disagree with that- new cadets can push the envelope when first posting (I did). But tell me, why is it still acceptable for RM to say such things?

Examples: I will only use myself as an example- I know I screw up here sometimes, and I'm not going to bash others.
Heck, this is even fairly recent.

Entirely out of my lane, however....

It's nice to see a new topic for flaming. I knew you communication types had it in you.

But how many of you are authorized to wear the communication patch on your BDUs?

This is me posting something completely irrelevant. Looking back, no, I should not have posted. Did this last week.
What happened?
SarDragon corrected me, everyone else ignored it, and the thread went on. 1 post telling me to knock it off. Nothing more or less.

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13812
RM posts this. He got 22 replies and 500+ views.
Out of the 22, 8 were either actually related to the topic, or were RM posting. That's still 14 posts, all either continually feeding the topic while at the same time they ALL said, "This is irrelevant to CAP."



Am I the only one that sees this problem?
I am not addressing RM. I am addressing the CT population.
So, are we going to continue?
My plan is that from this point on, I will not reply to RM's topics. I will not acknowledge his existence. I am tired of this board which has actually helped me further the growth and leadership of myself and TWO of my squadrons being polluted by garbage.

How many have the self-control to ignore him? That seems to be the consensus. No one agrees with his statements that I've seen.
So? Integrity. Prove you actually mean what you say. I'm done with RADIOMAN. I refuse to let that mean I am done with CAP Talk.

Radz.

[Major Lord]

Every life serves a purpose: if only to set a bad example.....

Major Lord