Cadet hazing

[CAPAviator]

I have a question for everybody concerned about cadet hazing and abuse....

There has been hazing within my former unit by the DCC for years. Several cadets have suffered emotional trama such as nightmares containing physical treatment by their DCC and his associates. Another cadet has panic attacks on each meeting day as a result of how he has been treated. The DCC has threatened to kill anyone who messes with his cadets, yet he is the one abusing them. Corporate headquaters has been informed yet nothing was done. It was all covered up. The unit commander and wing commander have done nothing. CAP regulations are clear that these people should have at least been suspended, but never were. It all reminds me of the sexual abuse covered up by the catholic church.

Is hazing truly what cadet programs are all about? Is it boot camp for kids? Should an adult yell at and tear off the head of a 12 year old? Does it build character? Will it prepare them for the military?

What would you do? Ignore this and move on? Is this how CAP is for these kids? 

[lordmonar]

With no details to go on.

If you think a CPP violation has take place you notify the commander.  If he does nothing then you go up the chain.

You stated that that has already take place.....so what's missing?

Are you saying that a valid complain was properly lodged against a commander the wing, region and national commanders all where given the information and then took no action what so ever?  Or are you saying a complain was lodge, investigation completed and no action to your likeing was taken.

I really can't beleive that in todays CAP a valid complaint was not followed up on and appropriate actions taken.  I may be wrong....but with out further information.....there's not a lot we can do.

[a2capt]

      Thats some serious allegations. Having been on witness to shenanigans that were definitely politically weighted by retaliation for enforcing standards and consistency, but .. Wow. Something as blatant as this, I'd imagine would be really hard to bury.

OTOH.. if you get no satisfaction at one level of command, find the next one up. There's only three or four before you find them all. In some cases, you're just 1 or 2 away from the top.

[Eclipse]

As a member you are bound by regulations to report hazing and cadet abuse immediately.

With that said, I have my doubts about the kind of behavior you indicate being able to exist in shadow with no one saying anything.  Cadets have parents, and most complain when decs are a day late, let alone the kinds of things you allege.

[CAPAviator]

It was reported. The mother of the first cadet quit a few weeks ago because nothing was done to the adult that enstilled nightmares into her child. This went to wing and NHQ. The cadet submitted a written statement of what he had endured for several years. The unit commander stated he felt the cadets suffer from Stockholm Syndrome yet he denied any abuse was the reason the DCC was demoted. What DCC gets removed from his command overnight for no reason??

You talk about the obligation by regulation to report abuse? Well, regulation is clear that anyone acused of abuse should be suspended. All that happened was he was removed a DCC, placed as advisor to commander for all matters cadet related. He still works with the cadets in the same matter as before and rumor is his seeks to regain his title as DCC.

Curt LaFond at NHQ was notified, Wing Command was notified, the Wing IG was notified.

One cadet suffers panic attacks each week before meetings. His mother never knew her child was suffering.

You all seem to think its hard to hide. Well it's real. The first cadet drafted an email to NHQ and the General herself. Explaining that this DCC is a plague that needed to be dealt with. Nothing has been done. CAP is a disgrace to its mission and purpose!! I puke at an organization that covers up child abuse!!

[CAPAviator]

And, yes, an investigation was done. And it's not a matter of if the result was to my liking. It's about was is right. You all can decide for yourself, should an adult that treats kids like they're in military boot camp be allowed to continue to influence them? Should an adult take a 14 year old and throw them up against the wall and scream and yell at them like a drill sgt. in the marines? These are the questions that needs to be answered.

Curt LaFond, cadet programs at NHQ described the treatment reported by these cadets as hazing. Yet after consulting with NHQ legal, the DCC acused by these cadets still works closely with them. 

Of course, how can CAP admit something is wrong?? They can't.

[lordmonar]

Well you are putting us into an information vacumn.

If you want real advice you have to give real details.

If you want to make an acusation about a cover up....the National IG and the BoG is the place to go.  You can get their phone number and e-mail address from E-services.

[CAPAviator]

Here is an email which one of the cadets sent to NHQ:

To whom it may concern,

I am a cadet from ****** Squadron. My only part in this unpleasant episode regarding the inappropriate behavior by Capt. ****** has consisted only in relating facts when they have been requested of me. I have served with Capt. ****** for more than five years and can affirm that everything you have heard about this officer up to now is completely 100% true.
The removal of Capt. ****** from the position as Commandant of Cadets was a good step, but this officer has still been approaching cadets and has been actively seeking to regain some of the responsibilities he formerly held. I strongly request that ex-CAP member ******* messages are taken seriously; Capt. ****** and his clique have reflected very poorly on CAP.
I have not been asked to make this statement. This is sent purely out of my own frustration at what has been an ongoing problem for my unit that could potentially go on plaguing us indefinitely unless it is addressed.

I request anonymity,
A long serving ********* Cadet

[Eclipse]

What DCC gets removed from his command overnight for no reason?

A DCC CDC is not "in command", and they leave all the time for various reasons, up to and including the reality that being falsly accusing of abuse is more trouble than it is worth to stick around.

What is your expectation from airing this here?

No one on this board can make a real determination because we are not privy to the situation, nor the supposed investigation.

Mr. LaFond would not make a public statement about an investigation, and it is further doubtful that anything he felt was "hazing"
would be allowed to stand.  having someone ask him a general question about the supposed behavior is not the same as his commenting
about a specific investigation (which would break quite a few regs).

Interesting in the alleged cadet note - there is no such position at the Squadron Level called "Commandant", so that puts some doubt as
to the veracity of the complaint.

Further, there is a specific procedure to hazing and abuse complaints, and they don't include sending a random note to "NHQ".

Refer to 52-16 and 52-10 for details on the proper procedure in hazing and abuse complaints.

[CATS]

We went to the national IG regarding hazing and hostile environment at the A-xxx, it was finally placed with regional IG. I feel that the National IG cared, but even his hands are tied, There just seems to be nothing that CAP will do to correct these matters.  The regional IG suggested that we just move on.  We were asked not to judge the whole CAP program based on the events at the A-xxx.  I told her how can I do anything else but judge the whole CAP program since regional and even national will not correct a situation where ther is hazing by a DCC and the DCC's  children who are allowed to run wild over the squadron. 

[Eclipse]

It's a little late to sanitize things - but your unit is also in your screen name...

[Extremepredjudice]

The Deputy IG(NHQ) is on this forum, he might see this.

Refer to 52-16 and 52-10 for details on the proper procedure in hazing and abuse complaints.

Also, CAPR123-2

Interesting in the alleged cadet note - there is no such position at the Squadron Level called "Commandant", so that puts some doubt as
to the veracity of the complaint.

Local terminology? preference? 

[CAPAviator]

Yes "Eclipse", the cadet spelled commander wrong, it's not a spelling bee. But that should not void his accusations.

And "Linda", it's nice to hear another example of NHQ ignoring cadets abuses. At least we can ascertain CAP's position in these two examples.

[Daniel]

Heres my thing,

Why would the cadets stay in a unit like that ?

I've been in CAP for around 2.5 years now and I can truly say if any of my squadrons senior members lay hand on me, and nothing was done about it, I wouldn't come back.. oh, and as my dcc says "there's nothing worse than an angry parent". I am 18 years old and even now I would still probably tell my mother..

I wonder why your posting this here though.. We cannot do much to help you..

[a2capt]

Growing Paines perhaps? There is another side to every story. Perhaps someone has axes to grind because they don't agree with a decision..

[CAPAviator]

"Daniel L.", thanks for your input. I don't know that I seek an solution to the problem as much as I seek opinion. Only through this forum can this topic be understood.

As for asking why these cadets tolerate the abuse, read more about "Stockholm Syndrome", this term was actually brought up by the units commander. He believes the cadets suffer this. Now you may not tolerate abuse, but some people do. Children are abused all the time and never say a word. The cadet that wrote the email above actually told his mother. It was the mother that was so afraid of the DCC, she (a CAP member herself), never told anyone. Until she met me. Then she somehow felt comfortable talking to me about it. Then her son went on his own and reported it to the unit commander. Then another cadet came to me after hearing through the gossip line that I helped, I met with him and his mother. He had been abused also and never told his mother. She was pissed!!

Nothing gets fixed if ignored. These things need to be talked about. I need to learn from others in this forum, through discussion. It may not fix the problem, but it helps knowing other people care.

[CATS]

My son had to leave because of the conditions in the squadron, as others did as well.  We assumed that the situation would surely be corrected and my son and the others could return.  Apparently that is not going to happen.

[Eclipse]

Yes "Eclipse", the cadet spelled commander wrong, it's not a spelling bee. But that should not void his accusations.

It means very little in the grand scheme, except that those little things tend to add up into larger misunderstandings about what may or or may not be hazing or even abuse.  Children get nightmares all the time and anything from turtles to Good Morning America, and in some cases they
have no structure or authority at home, and being told to "stand in line" with a period at the end of the sentence scares them.  That doesn't make it hazing or abuse.

Unless you want to forensically examine the entire situation, including your allegations of a white-wash, there is no way we can even determine what transpired, and to support Daniel, I would also ask what kind of parents would allow their children to participate in any situation for 2+ years where they
honestly believed their child was being harmed.

You still haven't told us what actually constituted the bad behavior.  The comments from the cadets alleged note point to disagreeing with the commander, which is where a lot of this kind of thing grows - everyone is happy until someone doesn't get the job they want, and then overnight
normal activity becomes "abuse".

Only through this forum can this topic be understood.

How do you figure?

[jimmydeanno]

It seems to me that if there are instances of the senior member in question physically assaulting cadets during the meetings, there are grounds for legal recourse.  If the cadets have been allegedly abused to the point of having mental issues because of it, intervention with the local authorities may be in order.  In some states you would have a legal obligation to report the incident to local law enforcement.

Perhaps you should call your wing legal officer and get their advice on the course of action you should take.

[Daniel]

"Daniel L.", thanks for your input. I don't know that I seek an solution to the problem as much as I seek opinion. Only through this forum can this topic be understood.

As for asking why these cadets tolerate the abuse, read more about "Stockholm Syndrome", this term was actually brought up by the units commander. He believes the cadets suffer this. Now you may not tolerate abuse, but some people do. Children are abused all the time and never say a word. The cadet that wrote the email above actually told his mother. It was the mother that was so afraid of the DCC, she (a CAP member herself), never told anyone. Until she met me. Then she somehow felt comfortable talking to me about it. Then her son went in his own and reported it. Then another cadet came to me after hearing through the gossip line that I helped, I met with him and his mother. He had been abused also and never told his mother. She was pissed!!

Nothing gets fixed if ignored. These things need to be talked about. I need to learn from others in this forum, through discussion. It may not fix the problem, but it helps knowing other people care.

I think stockholm syndrome is being used wrong the DCC isn't holding the cadets hostage (I hope) they go home at night. They have a chance to get out.. The squadrons meetings are what 2 hours a week. SS builds up during like long times with a captor when your start believing his rhetoric.. If this were the case the cadet would need some serious persuasion to leave. Although I truly believe its not SS. 

Now with that being said you word your posts like the majority of cap members MUST believe that hazing is good. Frankly we don't... We work to prevent hazing all the time.. I have taken many a class on how to prevent it and in my 2 years have never seen it happen

[CAPAviator]

Eclipse, point well taken. But when 4 cadets independently tell stories of similar nature and when other adults observe unusual behavior, you must take it seriously.

The DCC was demoted overnight, yet it was advertised as a stepping down after 6 years of service. That does not happen for no reason. A DCC does not leave his cadets overnight, coincidentally right after allegations of abuse, leaving nobody to take over, which was the case. Then struggle to regain his title.

[CAPAviator]

"Daniel L.", thanks for your input. I don't know that I seek an solution to the problem as much as I seek opinion. Only through this forum can this topic be understood.

As for asking why these cadets tolerate the abuse, read more about "Stockholm Syndrome", this term was actually brought up by the units commander. He believes the cadets suffer this. Now you may not tolerate abuse, but some people do. Children are abused all the time and never say a word. The cadet that wrote the email above actually told his mother. It was the mother that was so afraid of the DCC, she (a CAP member herself), never told anyone. Until she met me. Then she somehow felt comfortable talking to me about it. Then her son went in his own and reported it. Then another cadet came to me after hearing through the gossip line that I helped, I met with him and his mother. He had been abused also and never told his mother. She was pissed!!

Nothing gets fixed if ignored. These things need to be talked about. I need to learn from others in this forum, through discussion. It may not fix the problem, but it helps knowing other people care.

I think stockholm syndrome is being used wrong the DCC isn't holding the cadets hostage (I hope) they go home at night. They have a chance to get out.. The squadrons meetings are what 2 hours a week. SS builds up during like long times with a captor when your start believing his rhetoric.. If this were the case the cadet would need some serious persuasion to leave. Although I truly believe its not SS. 

Now with that being said you word your posts like the majority of cap members MUST believe that hazing is good. Frankly we don't... We work to prevent hazing all the time.. I have taken many a class on how to prevent it and in my 2 years have never seen it happen

Stockholm Syndrome does not only refer to hostage situations. It's a way to discribe how a person can come to believe the abuser is not a bad person and actually defend them.

[Daniel]

"Daniel L.", thanks for your input. I don't know that I seek an solution to the problem as much as I seek opinion. Only through this forum can this topic be understood.

As for asking why these cadets tolerate the abuse, read more about "Stockholm Syndrome", this term was actually brought up by the units commander. He believes the cadets suffer this. Now you may not tolerate abuse, but some people do. Children are abused all the time and never say a word. The cadet that wrote the email above actually told his mother. It was the mother that was so afraid of the DCC, she (a CAP member herself), never told anyone. Until she met me. Then she somehow felt comfortable talking to me about it. Then her son went in his own and reported it. Then another cadet came to me after hearing through the gossip line that I helped, I met with him and his mother. He had been abused also and never told his mother. She was pissed!!

Nothing gets fixed if ignored. These things need to be talked about. I need to learn from others in this forum, through discussion. It may not fix the problem, but it helps knowing other people care.

I think stockholm syndrome is being used wrong the DCC isn't holding the cadets hostage (I hope) they go home at night. They have a chance to get out.. The squadrons meetings are what 2 hours a week. SS builds up during like long times with a captor when your start believing his rhetoric.. If this were the case the cadet would need some serious persuasion to leave. Although I truly believe its not SS. 

Now with that being said you word your posts like the majority of cap members MUST believe that hazing is good. Frankly we don't... We work to prevent hazing all the time.. I have taken many a class on how to prevent it and in my 2 years have never seen it happen

Stockholm Syndrome does not only refer to hostage situations. It's a way to discribe how a person can come to believe the abuser is not a bad person and actually defend them.

"In psychology, Stockholm Syndrome is a term used to describe a real paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness."
-- Wikipedia

[Extremepredjudice]

"Daniel L.", thanks for your input. I don't know that I seek an solution to the problem as much as I seek opinion. Only through this forum can this topic be understood.

As for asking why these cadets tolerate the abuse, read more about "Stockholm Syndrome", this term was actually brought up by the units commander. He believes the cadets suffer this. Now you may not tolerate abuse, but some people do. Children are abused all the time and never say a word. The cadet that wrote the email above actually told his mother. It was the mother that was so afraid of the DCC, she (a CAP member herself), never told anyone. Until she met me. Then she somehow felt comfortable talking to me about it. Then her son went in his own and reported it. Then another cadet came to me after hearing through the gossip line that I helped, I met with him and his mother. He had been abused also and never told his mother. She was pissed!!

Nothing gets fixed if ignored. These things need to be talked about. I need to learn from others in this forum, through discussion. It may not fix the problem, but it helps knowing other people care.

I think stockholm syndrome is being used wrong the DCC isn't holding the cadets hostage (I hope) they go home at night. They have a chance to get out.. The squadrons meetings are what 2 hours a week. SS builds up during like long times with a captor when your start believing his rhetoric.. If this were the case the cadet would need some serious persuasion to leave. Although I truly believe its not SS. 

Now with that being said you word your posts like the majority of cap members MUST believe that hazing is good. Frankly we don't... We work to prevent hazing all the time.. I have taken many a class on how to prevent it and in my 2 years have never seen it happen

Stockholm Syndrome does not only refer to hostage situations. It's a way to discribe how a person can come to believe the abuser is not a bad person and actually defend them.

"In psychology, Stockholm Syndrome is a term used to describe a real paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness."
-- Wikipedia

Tch! wikipedia?

SS has been expanded in recent years to include other things

[Daniel]

Nein my friend

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2007-pdfs/july07leb.pdf/at_download/file

which is the citation explains.

SS is still the same..

[Extremepredjudice]

The FBI is definitely a psychological institution that studies this stuff.

But, sir, if you want to debate this, let's not spam up the thread. :angel: Send me a PM if you want to debate it.


Oh and congratz on C/Captain.

[Daniel]

The FBI is definitely a psychological institution that studies this stuff.

But, sir, if you want to debate this, let's not spam up the thread. :angel: Send me a PM if you want to debate it.


Oh and congratz on C/Captain.

I dont wish to debate anything I'm just saying the cadets in the unit in question could not have developed Stockholm syndrome.
which is relevent to this topic.

Oh and thanks

[a2capt]

... everyone is happy until someone doesn't get the job they want, and then overnight
normal activity becomes "abuse".

s/job/position/promotion/form signed, whatever. Really screws up people's lives, and in some cases, the whole unit, and others outside of it, just because you have a spoiled brat that didn't get what they want.  If it really is that bad, who'd hang around for two years, or more?

You seemed to be gloating all kinds of glee about Orientation Flights not too long ago.. only now to be pissing on the whole unit.

Kinda makes one wonder...

[CAPAviator]

... everyone is happy until someone doesn't get the job they want, and then overnight
normal activity becomes "abuse".

s/job/position/promotion/form signed, whatever. Really screws up people's lives, and in some cases, the whole unit, and others outside of it, just because you have a spoiled brat that didn't get what they want.  If it really is that bad, who'd hang around for two years, or more?

You seemed to be gloating all kinds of glee about Orientation Flights not too long ago.. only now to be pissing on the whole unit.

Kinda makes one wonder...

Wonder all you want. It's small minds like yours that allow these things to occur unchanged. You feel the need to discredit what came to the table after my GLEE event because at one time in my term at CAP I was actually having fun. Yes, I was not abused, but the facts can't be changed, when one child has nightmares and another has panic attacks, something needs to be fixed.

BTW, did ya like the video ;-). That's what CAP is supposed to be about!!!

[coudano]

Listen, Curt LaFond and the crew at NHQ/CP are the wrong venue to complain to.
Situations like this are a problem for the command structure, and the nhq cp shop is not anywhere in the chain of command.

I'd also like to point out that the General herself (Gen Courter), isn't the national commander anymore,
though she probably was at the time that these complaints arose.



No, all of CAP is not like this.
MOST of CAP is not like this.
Are there times and places where it goes on, unfortunately yes.
And sometimes it takes unfortunately long to correct.


The correct course of action is to raise the concern to the squadron commander immediately.
Or the next higher commander (group/wing commander)
This kicks off an automatic chain of notifications including wing commander, wing legal, region commander.

That's one avenue.

Another avenue is to file an official complaint with the IG.


If the unit, group, and wing commander failed to follow any regulations in processing your complaints, then THAT constitutes ANOTHER grounds for reporting to the next highe commander, or filing an IG complaint.


Can you show the complaint process properly implemented by the complaining parties to each of the above?
Can you provide the official response from each above official channel for complaint/redress?



If sufficient evidence exists to back up the claims, this senior member could be charged with assault and battery.



If all of that truly fails, quite honestly, if I were a parent of a cadet in that unit,
i'd pull my kid out of the squadron immediately,
and I would organize a meeting of all the other parents of cadets in the squadron
to discuss doing the same thing.

[Extremepredjudice]

... everyone is happy until someone doesn't get the job they want, and then overnight
normal activity becomes "abuse".

s/job/position/promotion/form signed, whatever. Really screws up people's lives, and in some cases, the whole unit, and others outside of it, just because you have a spoiled brat that didn't get what they want.  If it really is that bad, who'd hang around for two years, or more?

You seemed to be gloating all kinds of glee about Orientation Flights not too long ago.. only now to be pissing on the whole unit.

Kinda makes one wonder...

Wonder all you want. It's small minds like yours that allow these things to occur unchanged. You feel the need to discredit what came to the table after my GLEE event because at one time in my term at CAP I was actually having fun. Yes, I was not abused, but the facts can't be changed, when one child has nightmares and another has panic attacks, something needs to be fixed.

BTW, did ya like the video ;-). That's what CAP is supposed to be about!!!

Like stated before, maybe local Law enforcement needs to come say hi?

Contacting national immediately isn't always the best thing, sometimes maybe you need to start at the local level? Like I said, wing or groups (if applicable)


P.S. where is the squadron commander in this? He could fix things....
Daniel I sent you a PM. It was pretty hastily prepared, but I found a couple reputable sources. I removed three others because they weren't up to par for a research paper.

[CATS]

and if the squadron commander, wing IG and wing commander aren't interested in fixing things, as unbelievable as that may seem.  This is why I went to national.

[coudano]

and if the squadron commander, wing IG and wing commander aren't interested in fixing things, as unbelievable as that may seem.  This is why I went to national.

Let me rephrase the questions and see if you can answer them directly, and provide evidence to go along with your answers...


Can you show the complaint process properly implemented by the complaining parties to each of the above?
Can you provide the official response from each above official channel for complaint/redress?

[CAPAviator]

Listen, Curt LaFond and the crew at NHQ/CP are the wrong venue to complain to.
Situations like this are a problem for the command structure, and the nhq cp shop is not anywhere in the chain of command.

I'd also like to point out that the General herself (Gen Courter), isn't the national commander anymore,
though she probably was at the time that these complaints arose.



No, all of CAP is not like this.
MOST of CAP is not like this.
Are there times and places where it goes on, unfortunately yes.
And sometimes it takes unfortunately long to correct.


The correct course of action is to raise the concern to the squadron commander immediately.
Or the next higher commander (group/wing commander)
This kicks off an automatic chain of notifications including wing commander, wing legal, region commander.

That's one avenue.

Another avenue is to file an official complaint with the IG.


If the unit, group, and wing commander failed to follow any regulations in processing your complaints, then THAT constitutes ANOTHER grounds for reporting to the next highe commander, or filing an IG complaint.


Can you show the complaint process properly implemented by the complaining parties to each of the above?
Can you provide the official response from each above official channel for complaint/redress?



If sufficient evidence exists to back up the claims, this senior member could be charged with assault and battery.



If all of that truly fails, quite honestly, if I were a parent of a cadet in that unit,
i'd pull my kid out of the squadron immediately,
and I would organize a meeting of all the other parents of cadets in the squadron
to discuss doing the same thing.

Thanks!! That is the best advise I've heard thus far!!!

[a2capt]

LOL.. small mind.. because I'm not going to take anything thats given to me without thought. I'm gonna analyze the crud out of it. I've seen the other side of unfounded accusations, as well as well founded ones, and everything in between.

There are certain actions that are supposed to happen immediately if specific types of complaints are filed. There's always the region if you think the Wing is failing it's duty, however, they may defer it back to the level it's supposed to be at, at which point you should note the actions taken and re-file it showing what you believe to be in-appropriate or lack of action taken.

Of course, as mentioned, contact other parents and see what they say. You can get email addresses from eServices, of senior members, parents won't be there if they're not at least some type of member, tough many cadets may be using their parents email address, too.

But by your allegations,  that is really hard to white wash. If you've filed an actual complaint, you are entitled to the outcome of it. Even if they open and shut it right then.  CC the next higher echelon when you ask for the resolution, include copies of what you sent as a reminder.

[Spaceman3750]

parents won't be there if they're not at least some type of member

Under the cadet's contact information parents can set a contact with the "CADET PARENT EMAIL" type and it will show up at the bottom of the email address list.

[Johnny Yuma]

Bumping this...

Ok, I don't know which state this happened in, really don't care.

Anyone who's been in the program longer than 3 years who doesn't drink the NHQ, Inc. FlavorAide knows that the Cadet Protection Program is designed to protect NHQ, Inc., its corporate officers (NB, NEC, BOG) and its employees first and foremost from legal action.

If (and I do mean that, IF) there was a pattern of abuse witnessed by the OP to the extent he claims then in most states a crime has been committed. The question you need to ask yourself is: If I witnessed a crime outside of CAP, would I be reporting it to the law, or would I report it to my Wing Commander? Why then is it then treated differently because all the parties hold a ID card issued to them by a Corporation based out of Alabama?

OP: I would check my state laws to determine if they may have been violated. If you believe they have and victims/witnesses are willing to talk to the law about it then you already know what your civic duty is beyond the CPP notification.

[Eclipse]

If (and I do mean that, IF) there was a pattern of abuse witnessed by the OP to the extent he claims then in most states a crime has been committed. The question you need to ask yourself is: If I witnessed a crime outside of CAP, would I be reporting it to the law, or would I report it to my Wing Commander? Why then is it then treated differently because all the parties hold a ID card issued to them by a Corporation based out of Alabama?

Because that corporation says that if you want to continue to carry that card, you will abide by it's its rules.

This example has no relevance, since CAP has zero involvement with "crimes outside CAP".  Crimes that involve members are not "outside CAP".

The CPP protects everyone in CAP, but first and foremost protects the cadets.

[ol'fido]

Ask Joe Paterno about it.

[Ned]

Gosh, I'd forgotten what a cheerful, upbeat person you are when it comes to CP.

Anyone who's been in the program longer than 3 years who doesn't drink the NHQ, Inc. FlavorAide knows that the Cadet Protection Program is designed to protect NHQ, Inc., its corporate officers (NB, NEC, BOG) and its employees first and foremost from legal action.

Yeah, you keep saying that.  Strong personal opinion noted.  But it is still not true no matter how often you repeat it.

I was there.  I helped write it.  I know what we were thinking.  I see most or all of the complaints and litigation related to CP, including CPP issues.

I daresay the reverse is also true.  You weren't there.  You didn't write it.  You don't know what we were thinking.

But you are certainly entitled to your personal opinion.

If (and I do mean that, IF) there was a pattern of abuse witnessed by the OP to the extent he claims then in most states a crime has been committed.

Although the OP was very vague and mysterious, I don't disagree that in many states a crime could have been committed.  So?

The question you need to ask yourself is: If I witnessed a crime outside of CAP, would I be reporting it to the law, or would I report it to my Wing Commander? Why then is it then treated differently because all the parties hold a ID card issued to them by a Corporation based out of Alabama?

Umm, what? 

Nothing in the 52-10 or 52-16 suggests that a member cannot report a crime.  Indeed, the regulation specifically addresses "mandatory reporters" and notes that they must report as required by law.  IOW, there is certainly nothing wrong with reporting a criminal CPP violation to both your commander and the local authorities.  But you must report every suspected CPP violation as required by the 52-10.

[Dad2-4]

Nothing in the 52-10 or 52-16 suggests that a member cannot report a crime.  Indeed, the regulation specifically addresses "mandatory reporters" and notes that they must report as required by law.  IOW, there is certainly nothing wrong with reporting a criminal CPP violation to both your commander and the local authorities.  But you must report every suspected CPP violation as required by the 52-10.

(underline added by me)
BINGO! You must report to appropriate authority within CAP, but but in some cases you must report to local authority as well.
Having been in public education as well as CAP for 10 years, I would not hesitate to do both if a CDC was acting the way described by the OP. Let them investigate. Pretty sure the local authorities will not sweep it under the carpet without an investigation.

[niferous]

Has what actually happened been explained yet?  I just started scanning after so many messages of vagueness. 

[abdsp51]

Reading makes me question some things. OP states that he was told these events happened from the source.  OP states that a child has nightmares about said events and another has panic attacks.  Have these ailments been diagnosed by the proper professionals?  The squadron CC says they are experiencing Stockholm Syndrome ( and FYI that can go against said captors as well), is he a psychiatrist or a psychologist?  If things and I say if things were as hostile as alleged and this is coming from my count two cadets.  And given one allegation why was it not reported to the local pd?  There is more to this than what is being told.     

[Johnny Yuma]

The CPP protects everyone in CAP, but first and foremost protects the cadets.

I'd like to think so, but nope.

[Johnny Yuma]

Gosh, I'd forgotten what a cheerful, upbeat person you are when it comes to CP.

I love CP, it's the NHQ canned smoke I could do without...

Anyone who's been in the program longer than 3 years who doesn't drink the NHQ, Inc. FlavorAide knows that the Cadet Protection Program is designed to protect NHQ, Inc., its corporate officers (NB, NEC, BOG) and its employees first and foremost from legal action.

Yeah, you keep saying that.  Strong personal opinion noted.  But it is still not true no matter how often you repeat it.

I was there.  I helped write it.  I know what we were thinking.  I see most or all of the complaints and litigation related to CP, including CPP issues.

I daresay the reverse is also true.  You weren't there.  You didn't write it.  You don't know what we were thinking.

But you are certainly entitled to your personal opinion.

Ned, If your assertion is that NHQ's primary focus wasn't financial when they rewrote the BSA's abuse policies to fit CAP then it directly conflicts with 2 ex-corporate officers that I know who were there when they were briefed and discussed it. At the time BSA was losing their shirts in litigation over pedophiles in the scouts and the end goal was to protect CAP, Inc. from the same sort of liability, to the point that elimination of the cadet program entirely was discussed and eventually rejected. Some of the judgements the BSA was getting handed to them were in the millions and just one of those would have likely bankrupted CAP.

If (and I do mean that, IF) there was a pattern of abuse witnessed by the OP to the extent he claims then in most states a crime has been committed.

Although the OP was very vague and mysterious, I don't disagree that in many states a crime could have been committed.  So?

From the first time I took CPPT in the early, early 90's to when I retook it when I came back into the program it was made very clear that the CAP member was NOT to take any complaint of abuse outside of Corporate, period. It was made very plain that if any authorities were to notified CAP,Inc. would do it after their investigation was done.

The question you need to ask yourself is: If I witnessed a crime outside of CAP, would I be reporting it to the law, or would I report it to my Wing Commander? Why then is it then treated differently because all the parties hold a ID card issued to them by a Corporation based out of Alabama?

Umm, what? 

Nothing in the 52-10 or 52-16 suggests that a member cannot report a crime.  Indeed, the regulation specifically addresses "mandatory reporters" and notes that they must report as required by law.  IOW, there is certainly nothing wrong with reporting a criminal CPP violation to both your commander and the local authorities.  But you must report every suspected CPP violation as required by the 52-10.

Ned, that is NOT how it's been instructed in the formal CPPT. In fact the whole mandatory reporters was added under Pineda's reign  because of the flack NHQ got from mandatory reporters, specifically those trolls from TNWG that started that Starrswon group. If they were never forbidden to report abuse to local LEO's from the start then why the change to the regulation a few years back?

Sorry Ned, but I understand that a lawyer's first duty is to protect his client at nearly all costs. CAP, Inc. happens to be one of yours by choice. You can continue to sugarcoat things or question my truthfullness all you want but we know in the end the membership always ends up under the bus if it's in CAP, Inc's interests.

[Ned]

Ned, If your assertion is that NHQ's primary focus wasn't financial when they rewrote the BSA's abuse policies to fit CAP then it directly conflicts with 2 ex-corporate officers that I know who were there when they were briefed and discussed it.

Well, now we know that you are passing along second and third-hand information.  That certainly helps us understand where you are coming from.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion, even if it is based on incorrect information.

And I've always said that protecting cadets and reducing exposure to CAP are simply two sides of the same coin.  If we protect our cadets, then there isn't any serious exposure to litigation because there won't be any.

But when we wrote it, protecting our cadets was indeed our focus.  When the NB voted to enact the regulations and policies it may well be that one or more of the wing commanders felt that reducing exposure was more important than protecting cadets when they cast their vote.  Only the voters can tell you why they voted as they did.  But again, since the same exact policies drafted to protect cadets also reduce corporate exposure, their votes are one of those "tastes great, less filling" debates.

At the time BSA was losing their shirts in litigation over pedophiles in the scouts

True enough.  BSA even proposed forming a self-insurance pool with us to guard against large judgments.

We declined of course.  We spent a lot of time reverse-engineering the primary reasons the Scouts were having such trouble.  A lot of it was things like a whole lot of "one-on-one" counseling between Scouts and Scout leaders and a lot of camping trips were the participants were relatively unsupervised.

In our view, our exposure - even without any changes - was much less because our cadets spent far less time in one-on-one situations with adult leaders and had comparatively fewer bivouacs/camping situations.

But we knew we could do better, so drafted the CPP that included "two-deep" senior requirements for overnight activities and increased education, reporting, and suspension requirements.

It took us a while to develop our own training materials, so we borrowed (with permission) the BSA materials for a couple of years.

From the first time I took CPPT in the early, early 90's to when I retook it when I came back into the program it was made very clear that the CAP member was NOT to take any complaint of abuse outside of Corporate, period. It was made very plain that if any authorities were to notified CAP,Inc. would do it after their investigation was done.

It is a little hard to react to what you remember of what you were taught 20 years ago, but it bears repeating that nothing in our current policy prohibits or discourages members from contacting law enforcement when it is appropriate.  Heck, I've called the cops over a CPP incident.  (But then I am a mandatory reporter.)

Sorry Ned, but I understand that a lawyer's first duty is to protect his client at nearly all costs. CAP, Inc. happens to be one of yours by choice. You can continue to sugarcoat things or question my truthfullness all you want but we know in the end the membership always ends up under the bus if it's in CAP, Inc's interests.

I am not a CAP legal officer nor a corporate officer.  As a BoG member, I do have a duty to protect the corporation (including correcting wrongdoing by CAP members), but that is relatively recent.  But for over 35 years before being elected to the BoG, I served as a CP officer.  Where I have had a duty first and foremost to protect our cadets from harm.

And your assertions - based on second-hand and incorrect information - are simply wrong, selectively self-serving to promote your narrow vision of CAP, and are disrespectful of the volunteers who form the backbone of this organization.

And always easily done "anonymously" on the internet.

[Spaceman3750]

Lt. Col. Lee,

Because the CPP places a large emphasis on observation and reporting by individual members, does this policy open the membership to potential litigation for failing to act in what someone deems to be a "timely" manner? What about if the court rules that a "reasonable person" would have directly intervened instead of just reporting it - does that open individual members to civil liability as well?

I know I'm kind of speaking in hypotheticals here, but it's just something that popped into my head and I'm kind of curious. Has CAP potentially redirected liability for mistreatment of cadets onto otherwise innocent members?

[peter rabbit]

There is still a portion of the membership that believes we are the military, and that what most people would consider hazing is permissible at encampment. A link to an article was recently posted online in Headline News of Volunteer Now: http://www.polkio.com/ns/news/22114/encampment-tests-cadets. Encampment doesn't have to be easy, but does it serve a purpose to reduce "a few of the cadets in her flight to tears" ? The current CPPT policy encourages/demands that members have the courage to move us away from that kind of culture towards a more professional environment - not coddling, but professional. The best teacher I remember from high school was one that was tough, who challenged us, who earned our respect but never screamed at us or demeaned us. And that was in the 60's before political correctness started cutting the legs of support for teachers.

If the OP has facts of current CPPT violations, has reported them to his commander, wing commander, and wing IG; and hasn't received a written response whether an investigation will be opened or not - please PM me.

[EMT-83]

Lt. Col. Lee,

Because the CPP places a large emphasis on observation and reporting by individual members, does this policy open the membership to potential litigation for failing to act in what someone deems to be a "timely" manner? What about if the court rules that a "reasonable person" would have directly intervened instead of just reporting it - does that open individual members to civil liability as well?

I know I'm kind of speaking in hypotheticals here, but it's just something that popped into my head and I'm kind of curious. Has CAP potentially redirected liability for mistreatment of cadets onto otherwise innocent members?

I think you're making CPPT much harder than it is.

If you suspect a violation of CAP policies, report it to CAP. If you suspect a criminal offense, call the police as well.

I brief our seniors on CPPT annually, and make these points very clear. They get it.

[FW]

But when we wrote it, protecting our cadets was indeed our focus.  When the NB voted to enact the regulations and policies it may well be that one or more of the wing commanders felt that reducing exposure was more important than protecting cadets when they cast their vote.  Only the voters can tell you why they voted as they did.  But again, since the same exact policies drafted to protect cadets also reduce corporate exposure, their votes are one of those "tastes great, less filling" debates.

I am not a CAP legal officer nor a corporate officer.  As a BoG member, I do have a duty to protect the corporation (including correcting wrongdoing by CAP members), but that is relatively recent.  But for over 35 years before being elected to the BoG, I served as a CP officer.  Where I have had a duty first and foremost to protect our cadets from harm.

And your assertions - based on second-hand and incorrect information - are simply wrong, selectively self-serving to promote your narrow vision of CAP, and are disrespectful of the volunteers who form the backbone of this organization.

And always easily done "anonymously" on the internet.

+1

The need to bring a CPP program into CAP was based on a couple of high profile cases in the late 80's and early 90's; both in and out of CAP.  I had to deal with one case in CAP (the offender is stll in prison).  While reducing the risk to the corporation was made; Ned is quite correct in stating the primary purpose was to protect our cadets.  It is cynical to think anything else. 

[Eclipse]

Lt. Col. Lee,

Because the CPP places a large emphasis on observation and reporting by individual members, does this policy open the membership to potential litigation for failing to act in what someone deems to be a "timely" manner? What about if the court rules that a "reasonable person" would have directly intervened instead of just reporting it - does that open individual members to civil liability as well?

What do you mean by "intervene"? As leaders in CAP we are duty-bound to make anything "bad" stop immediately, including calling the police immediately if it won't stop or is beyond out ability to stop it.

Hazing, at least in the sense of the word most of us will ever have to deal with, or encampments with commanders and PAO's who clearly don't "get it", are not generally a crime, so internal reporting, etc., is all that is necessary and expected - (But it still should be reported!  I'd rather a complaint about non-hazing be made, vetted, and rebutted so that everyone involved knows it "wasn't", then have people wandering around making the accusations which are never formally investigated - BTDT both ways).

Legit abuse, in any form, needs to be dealt with swiftly and immediately, at least in as much as making it stop - in the same way that any leader with
sense would contact the police if they found a gun on a member, illegal substances, or similar.

To JY's rhetoric:
The rules protect everyone, that's the point.  Making an accusation that rules which protect the corporation or it's leaders are somehow "bad", means you don't understand that without those protections, there is no organization, in which case the whole conversation is irrelevant.

[Ned]

Lt. Col. Lee,

Because the CPP places a large emphasis on observation and reporting by individual members, does this policy open the membership to potential litigation for failing to act in what someone deems to be a "timely" manner?

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here.  If you (or any CAP member) sees a situation in which a cadet is being harmed - or may come to serious harm - you need to intervene first and report later as required by our regulations.

Our duty as adult members of CAP requires nothing less than immediate action to prevent a serious harm.

What about if the court rules that a "reasonable person" would have directly intervened instead of just reporting it - does that open individual members to civil liability as well?

Well, I know something about how courts come to their rulings, and if you had a

1.  duty to supervise one or more young people, and
2.  saw a situation in which one of your charges was being harmed or endangered, and
3.  failed to safely intervene to stop or minimize the harm,

why shouldn't you be at least partly responsible for what happens?

Isn't that the whole point of having senior members supervising cadets?  To use their training and common sense to recognize harmful situations and take action when necessary to stop it?

I just don't see liability as a practical problem here.  I literally cannot imagine a senior that would not take reasonable precautions to take care of the troops, and intervene when necessary.  Seniors tell cadets to get in out of the rain, put on sunscreen, and to cease acting disprespectfully to each other.

Although much rarer, I have seen seniors step in to prevent a fight after a heated volleyball game, tell strangers to leave the squadron area, and yes, report improper behavior by other seniors directed at cadets.

This is not rocket science or subtle legal loopholes.  It is just seniors using their common sense and guided by our regulations.

[Cool Mace]

This is not rocket science or subtle legal loopholes.  It is just seniors using their common sense and guided by our regulations.

Common sense, I have found is not that common. It should really be called uncommon sense.

+1 Ned!(yet again).

[CAPAviator]

Reading makes me question some things. OP states that he was told these events happened from the source.  OP states that a child has nightmares about said events and another has panic attacks.  Have these ailments been diagnosed by the proper professionals?  The squadron CC says they are experiencing Stockholm Syndrome ( and FYI that can go against said captors as well), is he a psychiatrist or a psychologist?  If things and I say if things were as hostile as alleged and this is coming from my count two cadets.  And given one allegation why was it not reported to the local pd?  There is more to this than what is being told.   

The CC is gone, his assistant is gone. Although no action was taken by CAP. There were 5 cadets that came forward. It's likely over now but the sad part is the coverup. What a sad organization the CAP is for ignoring these issues. FYI, Merle Starr, CAP IG asked for a formal complaint yet took no apparent action. It's a sad day for these victims.

And one last thing, the Squadron Commander used the term Stolkholm Syndrome to describe these cadets, he is a Police Officer, a lifetime CAP member and he ignored the complaints from the very cadets that explained to him that they were being hazed. 

Change can only come from the efforts of those who care for more than themselves, therefore change will never come in CAP. :-(

[peter rabbit]

I'm having a hard time believing the OP. Wish we had more documented information.

[CAPAviator]

I'm having a hard time believing the OP. Wish we had more documented information.

It's a moot topic at this point. The cadet commander and his assistant have left the unit. I suppose the reasons don't matter. Hopefully a lesson can be learned from what has happened.

[Extremepredjudice]

Reading makes me question some things. OP states that he was told these events happened from the source.  OP states that a child has nightmares about said events and another has panic attacks.  Have these ailments been diagnosed by the proper professionals?  The squadron CC says they are experiencing Stockholm Syndrome ( and FYI that can go against said captors as well), is he a psychiatrist or a psychologist?  If things and I say if things were as hostile as alleged and this is coming from my count two cadets.  And given one allegation why was it not reported to the local pd?  There is more to this than what is being told.   

The CC is gone, his assistant is gone. Although no action was taken by CAP. There were 5 cadets that came forward. It's likely over now but the sad part is the coverup. What a sad organization the CAP is for ignoring these issues. FYI, Merle Starr, CAP IG asked for a formal complaint yet took no apparent action. It's a sad day for these victims.

And one last thing, the Squadron Commander used the term Stolkholm Syndrome to describe these cadets, he is a Police Officer, a lifetime CAP member and he ignored the complaints from the very cadets that explained to him that they were being hazed. 

Change can only come from the efforts of those who care for more than themselves, therefore change will never come in CAP. :-(

The fact the squadron commander was a police officer doesn't qualify him to diagnose people. Especially since there aren't very many kidnappings, so he would have one experience with SS, if any.

[Eclipse]

If they left the unit, but are still active members, then in many ways the issue is potentially far from closed.

However as we've pointed out many times, there is really no way to discuss these matters in enough detail to be able to have
any sort of satisfying discussion.  There are always shades of perception and personal filter on these things, which is why the IG's
are supposed to get involved.

The initial assertions of "years of hazing", to me, made the scenario suspect because legit hazing rarely lasts beyond a few incidents -
people complain, quit, or both.

Certainly no parent with common sense or any level of involvement with their kids would allow them to remain in a program that was giving
them nightmares.

[Extremepredjudice]

Certainly no parent with common sense or any level of involvement with their kids would allow them to remain in a program that was giving them nightmares

Sir, the world has lots of people who don't have sense.

[abdsp51]

+1 police cannot legally diagnose SS.  I still think there is more here than what is being told and sounds like a disgruntled member or former member.

[Major Lord]

I would not denigrate a poster complaining of action against alleged abuse. Being frustrated by (alleged) inaction on the part of CAP  does not necessarily reflect his competence or standing to complain, and his lack of facts and clear articulation does not make him wrong. An ordinary CAP member may believe that just passing information to the I.G. requires an "investigation", but this is not the case. The I.G. is only obligated to begin a preliminary assessment to determine whether the presented facts reach the level of an actual violation or rules, ethics, or laws. In many cases, it never goes beyond that. My question would go more to whether or not the established protective mechanisms established by regulations were carried out in questions of abuse of Cadets. If not, heads should roll. If the CAP protective association substituted their judgment in leaving a CDC in place after allegations of abuse, every participant should swing from the yardarm. Of course, if you have the courage of your convictions, stand in the door and bar the member from entry; Would you let an abusive parent in the door if your own kid was in there? I hope not.

Does CAP sometimes cover up their misdeeds? Sure they do. We are an organization of flawed ( some might say more often than normal) human beings. I fully understand the frustration. Some time back, the CAWG "Bearfacts" ran an article referring to the donation of some very specialized gear to a number of unidentified squadrons with the presentations taking place at the National Convention. The only problem was that there were no donations, the equipment was non-existent, National never received the equipment identification to place it into inventory, and no one has been able to validate that any actual donations took place. The fact that the principals of the "donating" Company were members of the National Command staff, and ranking members of CAWG staff, apparently was not considered in what to me was an apparently  fraudulent scheme. Nonetheless, CAP's IG found no fault, and not even a retraction was published. Naturally, I found CAP's passive reaction abhorrent, but its not my 501 C-3 status that is endangered by tax shenanigans, it CAP's. I am not a Corporate Officer, so we have to hope the chips fall where they may, and that there is little collateral damage to innocents and the organization.

That being said, if you think that Cadets are being harmed in any way, draw your sword and don't put it down until you are the last man standing. Any real man will back you up.

Major Lord

[Eclipse]

I would not denigrate a poster complaining of action against alleged abuse. Being frustrated by (alleged) inaction on the part of CAP  does not necessarily reflect his competence or standing to complain, and his lack of facts and clear articulation does not make him wrong.

It doesn't make him "wrong", it's just an impossible conversation.

You can't credibly discuss three-sided situations (he-said, she-said, the truth) with only one side, and invariably the way these conversations go is that we get the gist of the story in the OP, and then from that point on the poster will inject more "detail" into the thread to support his (generally negative) assertion about CAP's handling of it, which generally just makes the story less and less credible.

The bottom line is that CAP, institutionally, has no tolerance for abuse (of any kind) or hazing, and has a robust structure to deal with it, however, just like every other similar organization, the military, and private business, the system requires the actions of human beings, all who may have an opinion about it, not to mention some personal responsibility on the part of the alleged victims in reporting / not tolerating the behavior.

I just don't like new posters who march in here with a public head of steam and start telling 2nd and 3rd-hand stories about some alleged abuse that was not handled correctly (in their opinion), and insinuating (again publicly), that CAP is institutionally disinterested in remediating these situations.

Worse still is the naive sense of anonymity that some people on this board believe they have, which in many cases results in them saying things that expose the real participants / unit / alleged victim, in ways which are both against regulations and unfair to all involved.

[Major Lord]

I agree with you about anonymous posters in general. I also don't place a lot of stock in hearsay reports of wrongdoing, especially by newbies, who may have joined this page just to throw monkey wrenches into the works to redress their private grievances. However, if we could truthfully say that CAP has acted properly, transparently, and more importantly, timely, in resolving complaints, this third-order attempt at over-site would not be required. Is this a valid case of a CAP going into CYA mode? Who knows? But clearly this has happened before, and I for one think that any allegation of Cadet abuse needs to resolved dispositively. Sunlight as they say, is the best disinfectant. We don't know enough about the truth of the allegations, but the parties directly involved will no doubt become aware of the discussion here, and hopefully, clear the air.

Major Lord

[CAPAviator]

I can understand doubt in allegations that do not reveal all the details. But look back at the beginning, the post was an effort to seek advice, not at all to point fingers or to make any claims. 

It is all simply political. I'm not at all surprised that CAP would bury this, I am not surprised members of CAP would defend their organization.

A famous political scandal we all are familiar with is the one in which we all heard the words: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." --President Bill Clinton.

It's the first response to ANY allegations of wrongdoing. To lie is a human defense. Self protection. Hide the wrong because the truth hurts. Deny the possiblity that an adult can haze and torment a child. This can't happen in our perfect world.

It took West Point Military Academy generations to learn that hazing DOES NOT work. CAP is still learning.

At this point however, as noted previously, the mere fact these allegations were brought to the attention of CAP Corporate, and whatever the reasoning, the Cadet Commander and his acompliance are gone, awareness has stopped the hazing and life is better for these cadets. From this point on, let it be a lesson to all what is wrong and let's hope it never happens again.

The End.

[Eclipse]

I'm sorry, but your OP contained loaded, unverifiable statements, in which you were either not directly involved, or indirectly complicit, you make a presumption that ignoring abuse allegations is systemic to the organization, and then you can't believe when your unsubstantiated allegations
are at least questioned?

I don't believe very many people here felt you were "seeking advice".  Because the advice is simple - abuse of any kind is not tolerated, and it
is our duty to report it immediately and properly (whatever "properly" means to the individual).

You assert that the "offenders" have left the unit, yet you failed to indicate why, other than to say the reasons "don't matter", and now you want to
somehow connect this with a completely unrelated indiscretion by someone else, and then further allege that CAP hazes cadets as a matter of course because we haven't learned our "lesson" yet?

What "lesson", exactly, is this supposed to teach?

[Eclipse]

In fact, after re-reading your scenario, it is so cartoonish that if it weren't alleged to be factual, it would look like a fumbled attempt at a hazing lecture.

Seriously, what kind of a parent would allow their child to participate in a program that causes panic attacks at every meeting?  And if the parents involved are so disconnected that they allow this to continue, including the threats of death from the CDC, then how do you expect the corporation to do anything?

Do you realize that you are alleging a conspiracy that would have to encompass the entire unit, Group (if you have them), and all the major players at the wing level just to protect some goofball who is discrediting CAP?

[abdsp51]

The op has also changed whom was allegedly conducting said hazing or maybe I am getting the acronyms mixed up,  something smells fishy and is making my spidy sense tingle.

[Johnny Yuma]

I am not a CAP legal officer nor a corporate officer.  As a BoG member, I do have a duty to protect the corporation (including correcting wrongdoing by CAP members), but that is relatively recent.  But for over 35 years before being elected to the BoG, I served as a CP officer.  Where I have had a duty first and foremost to protect our cadets from harm.

And your assertions - based on second-hand and incorrect information - are simply wrong, selectively self-serving to promote your narrow vision of CAP, and are disrespectful of the volunteers who form the backbone of this organization.

And always easily done "anonymously" on the internet.

There are more than enough folks on this forum that know who I am and a going over of my posts will tell you what Wing I'm in as well as what staff positions I hold, so I don't consider myself an anonymous poster.

I'll take Pat Lane's "second hand information" account of what happened at the board involving the original CPPT over revisionist history from NHQ, Inc. all day long. She was there as KSWG Wing Commander at the time. 

So I take it from you that someone who doesn't accept the company line as told from CAP, Inc.'s National Headquarters without question is wrong, self serving and disrespectful? You really need to get back down to the unit level again and disconnect from NHQ for a couple years and get introduced to exactly how most feel about NHQ, Inc.

Contrary to what you want to believe, I call it down the middle. There was no bigger defender of CAP here than me when that Blansett clown and his stooge were over here stirring the pot with their wild cadet abuse accusations because on the face it was B.S. I no longer so much as look at NOTF when they went from providing information to providing pontification on everything CAP. But that doesn't change the fact that NHQ, Inc has its own issues, starting with a poor record of protecting the average Joe Member and tossing Joe to the wolves if it benefits NHQ, Inc.

[Private Investigator]

...From this point on, let it be a lesson to all what is wrong and let's hope it never happens again.

The End.

I think in CAP we need to be on top of everything because we do not want CAP on 20/20 or 60 Minutes like other groups.

Thanks for the closure.