NB meeting agenda

[NCRblues]

  It would appear that way, yes...

[caphornbuckle]

Agenda Item #9...is the NLO actually suggesting that all CAP members mandate a Physical Exam every three years?

It could be similar to what the Boy Scouts of America require for their scouts and leaders in order to go to Summer Camp.  Physicals are required to attend them and are renewed every three years.

[FARRIER]

Is Radioman starting to make sense 

[BillB]

That can't be a National Board Agenda.... There isn't a single item on uniforms (other than Reserve members)

[FW]

Wait.  What's with the NDAs?  Haven't we all taken OPSEC before anyway?  So corporate officers should know that they shouldn't discuss sensitive information, right?

Corporate officers already understand the need to be silent on matters of "work product" when in closed session, IG investigations or personnel actions.  They also already understand the need to be silent on negotiations of "special projects".  NDA's just formalize the understanding.  It should not change anything. 

That being said, any decisions of the BoG, NEC or, NB is fair game and public record.  I have no problems with NDA's and, if the MARB stays independent, no worries about abusing them.

Speaking of the MARB, if Agenda item two is passed as proposed, the Commander's decision is sustained in a tie vote.  This would take the vote away from the NLO and, make the commander the defacto chair for the appeal.  I think that is not the way to procede.

[JeffDG]

Speaking of the MARB, if Agenda item two is passed as proposed, the Commander's decision is sustained in a tie vote.  This would take the vote away from the NLO and, make the commander the defacto chair for the appeal.  I think that is not the way to procede.

Not really...The Chair of a board has two potential roles from a parliamentary procedure perspective.  The primary role is to conduct and maintain order during proceedings.  The NLO would continue in this role.  The other is to hold a "casting vote" in the event of a tie.  That's all that would be lost.

It's common in parliamentary procedure that a tie sustains the prior state of affairs.  Roberts Rules of Order for example provides that in the case of an appeal of the decision of the Chair, a tie vote sustains the decision of the Chair.  The "burden of proof" that a decision was inappropriate is already with the person challenging, so requiring that the burden be met to the satisfaction of a majority of MARB members is not a huge stretch.

[FW]

The MARB is not part of the "chain of command".  It is supposed to review the decision of the commander and rule on appropriateness of the adverse action, granting relief if needed.  It is supposed to be independent and separate from the commander's influence.  The NLO is the chairman.  If the National Commander is involved, a designee is appointed chair.  The chair is the tie breaker at the current time.  Taking that privilege away from the chair is wrong, IMHO.

[RADIOMAN015]

Agenda Item #9...is the NLO actually suggesting that all CAP members mandate a Physical Exam every three years?

Yea they want to get into every aspect of someones life even when it would have NO effect on their volunteer duties in CAP .   I think most of us adults can think for ourselves pretty good and if we have a medical condition that will kill or seriously injure us, it's likely someone at the activity will know about it.  As far as everything else goes, let me put in bluntly IT'S NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!!  IF I certify that I am physically fit to meet the specifics of a training course or activity, etc than that should be it!!!

Just because someone gets hurt at an activity (with a 'possible' underlying medical condition) doesn't necessarily mean we have to go crazy with forms and physical examination requirements.  Additionally, I have some very strong privacy concerns about medical data on how CAP is going to control and dispose of these forms once an activity is completed.    
RM     

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I find myself agreeing with RADIOMAN...who woulda thunkit?

First of all, the NDA seems like using a guillotine to cure a headache, considering that we all have to take part in OPSEC training.  CAP members who have been in the Real Military also know the importance of things like "need-to-know" basis.

As to the physicals...I predict some strenuous dissent on this one.

First of all, who's going to pay for it?  If it becomes mandatory, CAP and/or the AF should either reimburse the cost of getting it done with a private physician or have a military/USPHS doc do it.  I am one with "chronic health conditions (some that I was born with)," and there are simply some activities in CAP that I cannot do.  So I do not volunteer for those activities.  It should be down to the unit level to keep updated Form 60's on hand, as well as one on your person at all times when participating in CAP.  My unit mandates this.

I would also wonder what would be done with such sensitive information.  Could it be used as a pretext for kicking someone out of CAP that a commander doesn't like, or what happens after the member leaves?

[caphornbuckle]

As I stated earlier, the BSA has had the requirement for physicals for activities over 72 hours for years for both the scouts and the leaders on their dimes as well.

http://scouting.org/sitecore/content/Home/HealthandSafety/ahmr.aspx

I would venture to guess that this would be similar.  I can't say I agree with it myself, I just wanted to state that it has been done before in another organization.

[EMT-83]

NDA is completely different than OPSEC – not even closely related.

They're common in the business world; I'm surprised they haven't been required prior to now.

[MSG Mac]

As I stated earlier, the BSA has had the requirement for physicals for activities over 72 hours for years for both the scouts and the leaders on their dimes as well.

http://scouting.org/sitecore/content/Home/HealthandSafety/ahmr.aspx

I would venture to guess that this would be similar.  I can't say I agree with it myself, I just wanted to state that it has been done before in another organization.

We are not the Boy Scounts!!!

Is everyone at National and subordinate units going to have to be HIPA certified? What happens to this "confidential" information once the individual leaves the program?
Who will have access to the medical records? I know the National Medical Officer lives in Texas, Is she going to visit Maxwell and review all these records? 

[Ned]

Michael,

We are not the Boy Scounts!!!

Indeed.  We have only a fraction of their resources and professional staffing.  Their fund-raising abilities alone should make us envious.

But what was your point? 

That we don't have both adult and youth members who occaisionally engage in physically challenging activities that may be located in rural areas or even the wilderness?

That we don't have members that have pre-existing physical conditions that could be problematic under those situations?

That sometimes members have health conditions unknown even to themselves that sometimes present during these activities?

That we haven't already had dozens of moderate-to-severe incidents where this has happened?

Is everyone at National and subordinate units going to have to be HIPA certified?

That's easy.  No.  CAP is not a health care provider nor an insurance company.  HIPPA simply does not apply to us.

What happens to this "confidential" information once the individual leaves the program?
Who will have access to the medical records?

Good questions.  Protection of this kind of private information is certainly important, and something that every member has a right to be concerned about. 

Maybe that is why Col Chazell is proposing that a committee be established to study the problem, including the experts from the Health and Legal teams.

Restated, Agenda Item #9 is just a proposal to establish a committee to study the issue.  It is not quite time to assemble the torches and pitchforks.

I'm confident the committee - if approved - would address your concerns before any actions are even considered.  Committees propose regulations and policies, each of which will allow for member input before any actual changes are made.

[RADIOMAN015]

Non Disclosure Agreements by Corporate Officials  --- What the policy is proposing is a pretty broad brush of interpretation of what remains 'secret' in an organization that is primarily supported by taxpayers and not very much via private funding (as is in private businesses -- that surely can require "paid" employees to sign these type of agreements).   I'm wonder if it also opens the door to others (not corporate officials) being required to sign these type of muzzle contracts .   Surely I would agree that any personnel actions require protection.  BUT I also have to wonder what does CAP really have to hide that requires it's corporate officers (who are all very dedicated to CAP through years of trustworthy service) to sign these agreements.  Again is it the typical CAP "paranoia" which seems the organization suffers from that is driving this requirement
RM     

[Eclipse]

Until and unless NHQ is going to pay for the physicals, they will have a hard time making things stick - that doesn't make them a bad
idea, but as others have pointed out elsewhere, at least some of our members have financial issue which preclude their getting regular healthcare
(the current situation in DC notwithstanding).

This is likely a non-issue for cadets, as most schools require substantiation of physicals and shots before you can register, but for adult members
is a different story and will depend how it is implemented.  Tell a senior member he can't rappel at encampment without a physical is one thing, tell him he can't be on admin or comm staff without one will,  likely impact some members participation and possibly their membership.

This would be the place where we could utilize our Medical Officers.  It would be interesting to see how many would be willing to give
free physicals to members - that would actually be a benefit worth putting in the marketing collateral.

As to the NDA's.  Considering they are SOP in most corporations for even mid-level managers, they certainly are appropriate for CAP.
Though beyond giving an objective cause for termination which might otherwise be challenged, they won't mean much beyond the 2b,
which for any corporate officer that is leaking information to third parties, should be swift and permanent.

[MSG Mac]

Ned

Point is that the Civil Air Patrol is not the BSA. Their policies are to protect their assets. CAP doesn't seem to have anywhere close to the liability that the scouts have.

Secondly I believe HIPA also covers the custodians of the records, not just the healthcare providers. But you are the lawyer. If, as you say,  the information that is requested is not covered by any confidentiality requirement. Why submit it?

Who will review these records upon receipt? Does CAP have a medical staff that can review 30-40,000 medical records, along with contacting the local physicians to verify questionable conditions?

[Eclipse]

Secondly I believe HIPA also covers the custodians of the records, not just the healthcare providers. But you are the lawyer. If, as you say,  the information that is requested is not covered by any confidentiality requirement. Why submit it?

It doesn't - since CAP is neither an employer (for their volunteers), nor a healthcare provider or insurance company, what it does with information
members voluntarily give them is not covered.

You submit it because you want to play in the sandbox, and the sandboxes rules say you do.  Plain and simple.

[MSG Mac]

So I won't fly their airplanes or drive their vehicles. No big deal, I'm not doing that now.
Aircrews already have to provide proof of an FAA Physical. So there's no new requirement there.
Other than that I see no reason to provide a physical to CAP. It's none of their business, especially when you're telling us that it becomes tantamount to  public information when we release it to CAP.   

[Ned]

Ned

Point is that the Civil Air Patrol is not the BSA. Their policies are to protect their assets. CAP doesn't seem to have anywhere close to the liability that the scouts have.

Really?  What makes you say that?  I would have guessed that since they are a Congressionally-chartered 501c3 just like us, have both adult and youth volunteer members just like us, and occasionally have their members perform physically challenging activities in rural and wilderness areas just like us, that the liability issues might be more similar than dissimilar.

Secondly I believe HIPA also covers the custodians of the records, not just the healthcare providers. But you are the lawyer. If, as you say,  the information that is requested is not covered by any confidentiality requirement. Why submit it?

HIPPA absolutely covers the record custodians of health care providers and insurance companies.  But - by its own terms -  it simply does not apply to CAP, Inc or our volunteers.

As I said, I agree that confidentiality of the records is a legitimate concern whether we are covered by HIPPA or not.  That's why we might establish a committee to study the problem before we make any changes.

Which is all this proposal is - a request to form a committee to study the problem.

No more, no less.

Are you saying you are opposed to the formation of a committee to study the very problems you point out?

[RADIOMAN015]

Secondly I believe HIPA also covers the custodians of the records, not just the healthcare providers. But you are the lawyer. If, as you say,  the information that is requested is not covered by any confidentiality requirement. Why submit it?

It doesn't - since CAP is neither an employer (for their volunteers), nor a healthcare provider or insurance company, what it does with information
members voluntarily give them is not covered.

You submit it because you want to play in the sandbox, and the sandboxes rules say you do.  Plain and simple.

Adult members can readily place on the medical form "Emergency Medical Information available for access in (my wallet, upper right shirt pocket, etc) IF required".  That's all that needs to be put there.  Also from a practical standpoint, in most squadrons we pretty much know about the medical issues on our members IF any emergency occurs.  OR they again can tell us IF I go down, check my wallet for emergency medical information. 

What CAP first needs to decide is what is the physical and mental requirements for each mission position and OR any other special activity.  Senior members can certify on the form that they meet the physical/mental requirements -- pretty simple in my book (less government/CAP intrusion into our private lives).   HOWEVER, on cadets since we are acting in the place of their parents we would need to know their medical issues.  Surely Incident Commanders or Activity Directors may have to make some judgements IF someone presents at the activity/mission with an obvious physical/mental problem. 

As far as a medical exam/physical requirements.   I recently completed my physical with my long term family physician, and he was satisfied with the results.  So I asked him "Does this mean when I leave your office I won't drop dead?", and his answer was "I didn't say that!"  - So there's limitations on this requirement also and there's no golden medical standard that offers complete protection to anyone cause that's the way it.

Got to really wonder why we need more requirements put on the unpaid, volunteer members
RM