Update Draft: http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/CAPR_5210_Round_2_coordination_1865CE9A135F4.pdf (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/CAPR_5210_Round_2_coordination_1865CE9A135F4.pdf)
Includes comments in the sidebar.
Looks like most of the "concerns" were addressed in one form or another "Addressed" doesn't always mean "agreed with".
Relaxed some of the more specific restrictions on electronic communications, accounts for cadet flight training, calls for CPP refreshers.
Updated Whitepaper: http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/Reply_to_CPP_Comments_BAAB4BBA14D17.pdf (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/Reply_to_CPP_Comments_BAAB4BBA14D17.pdf)
My "favorite" comment - "We rarely have more than one . . . senior at a cadet activity. This will kill our squadron."
Hint: If you can't get more the one senior member to a unit meeting on a regular basis, your unit is already dead.
They've definitely worked to incorporate a lot of concerns. Most of the serious concerns, I think, had less to do with disagreement with the intent of the reg as with unintended consequences it could cause. I can see a couple of things that will require minor revisions in some procedures (shower management at encampment, for instance), but nothing debilitating.
My biggest concern with the first draft was that it was incredibly intrusive into the personal lives of members. It made being a parent and a member excessively difficult and made professional relationships impossible. The second draft helped, but this one hits on pretty much most of them.
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/CAP_Vector__JanuaryMarch_2014_029373D619EB6.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/CAP_Vector__JanuaryMarch_2014_029373D619EB6.pdf)
Cadet Protection Policy: A redesigned CPP and its CAPR 52-10 is in final coordination. The proposed
policy emphasizes two-deep leadership and a new focus on preventing actions that could lead to greater
risk for our cadets. Plans call for the new regulation to be published 3 or 4 months prior to its effective date,
with new training materials becoming available at that time so that members can get acclimated to the new
standards. For drafts and background papers, please see www.capmembers.com/provinggrounds (http://www.capmembers.com/provinggrounds).
Now if they could fix the CPPT module and have links to case studies within...
Quote from: Eclipse on December 18, 2013, 07:53:47 PM
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/CAP_Vector__JanuaryMarch_2014_029373D619EB6.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/CAP_Vector__JanuaryMarch_2014_029373D619EB6.pdf)
Cadet Protection Policy: A redesigned CPP and its CAPR 52-10 is in final coordination. The proposed
policy emphasizes two-deep leadership and a new focus on preventing actions that could lead to greater
risk for our cadets. Plans call for the new regulation to be published 3 or 4 months prior to its effective date,
with new training materials becoming available at that time so that members can get acclimated to the new
standards. For drafts and background papers, please see www.capmembers.com/provinggrounds (http://www.capmembers.com/provinggrounds).
I guess they're chalking it up to "plans change" and explaining it away as a guideline instead of a hard and fast deadline. Otherwise it will become the next victim of the 5-year ICL after CAPM 39-1 finally gets released.
That or they'll start counting from the final approved date, instead of the draft publish date.
Quote from: Brad on December 18, 2013, 09:22:47 PM
I guess they're chalking it up to "plans change" and explaining it away as a guideline instead of a hard and fast deadline. Otherwise it will become the next victim of the 5-year ICL after CAPM 39-1 finally gets released.
That or they'll start counting from the final approved date, instead of the draft publish date.
The 52-10 will be published on a specific date (ie. 1 January) and will likely include guidance that says "The provisions of this regulation go into effect on 1 July 2014. Until 1 July 2014, the CAPR 52-10 dated [whatever date the current one is] will be used as operative guidance."
Or they'll publish it as "CAPR 52-10 (New) - Effective Date 1 July 2014"
Nothing says you can't specify that a regulation goes into effect on a date AFTER it is published.
Quote from: NIN on December 18, 2013, 11:00:55 PM
Quote from: Brad on December 18, 2013, 09:22:47 PM
I guess they're chalking it up to "plans change" and explaining it away as a guideline instead of a hard and fast deadline. Otherwise it will become the next victim of the 5-year ICL after CAPM 39-1 finally gets released.
That or they'll start counting from the final approved date, instead of the draft publish date.
The 52-10 will be published on a specific date (ie. 1 January) and will likely include guidance that says "The provisions of this regulation go into effect on 1 July 2014. Until 1 July 2014, the CAPR 52-10 dated [whatever date the current one is] will be used as operative guidance."
Or they'll publish it as "CAPR 52-10 (New) - Effective Date 1 July 2014"
Nothing says you can't specify that a regulation goes into effect on a date AFTER it is published.
Right, I get that point perfectly well. What I was commenting on is that Eclipse is implying that we were (somewhat) told 3-4 months, and here it is now the 3-4 month mark and the regulation has yet to be made effective, or even published with a 3-4 month future effective date.
I wasn't implying anything - that's a direct quote from the most recent Vector as linked above it, which was published today.
Quote from: Brad on December 18, 2013, 11:09:20 PM
Right, I get that point perfectly well. What I was commenting on is that Eclipse is implying that we were (somewhat) told 3-4 months, and here it is now the 3-4 month mark and the regulation has yet to be made effective, or even published with a 3-4 month future effective date.
You know, sometimes in CAP, things happen at the speed of HQ, not the speed of the field.
And sometimes the speed of HQ is incomprehensible to us mere mortals.
Thats why they call it "echelons above reality."
One thing worth pointing out. We've now gone from a 2-page fairly simple policy (don't be dumb) to 17 pages that will take a fair amount of time to truly digest and understand. Of course, it actually deserves that attention, but the average member isn't going to do that.
Clif notes or bullet points would be nice.
EDIT: Actually, on second reading, it's not too bad. Pretty straightforward and will hopefully squish some of the "local policies" or "CPP rumors".
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on December 19, 2013, 04:25:50 AM
One thing worth pointing out. We've now gone from a 2-page fairly simple policy (don't be dumb) to 17 pages that will take a fair amount of time to truly digest and understand. Of course, it actually deserves that attention, but the average member isn't going to do that.
Clif notes or bullet points would be nice.
EDIT: Actually, on second reading, it's not too bad. Pretty straightforward and will hopefully squish some of the "local policies" or "CPP rumors".
What I noticed as a good thing in the new CPP is that it addresses the difference between hazing and the higher "level of intensity" present at Encampment and the like. Yes admittedly it does get overdone at times by the handful of cadet NCOs who have watched too much Full Metal Jacket, but at the same time it will hopefully dampen down the "My Flight Sergeant spoke to me in a Command Voice, I feel hazed!"
Quote from: Brad on December 19, 2013, 01:57:45 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on December 19, 2013, 04:25:50 AM
One thing worth pointing out. We've now gone from a 2-page fairly simple policy (don't be dumb) to 17 pages that will take a fair amount of time to truly digest and understand. Of course, it actually deserves that attention, but the average member isn't going to do that.
Clif notes or bullet points would be nice.
EDIT: Actually, on second reading, it's not too bad. Pretty straightforward and will hopefully squish some of the "local policies" or "CPP rumors".
What I noticed as a good thing in the new CPP is that it addresses the difference between hazing and the higher "level of intensity" present at Encampment and the like. Yes admittedly it does get overdone at times by the handful of cadet NCOs who have watched too much Full Metal Jacket, but at the same time it will hopefully dampen down the "My Flight Sergeant spoke to me in a Command Voice, I feel hazed!"
Part of the reason for the delay is to give folks time to accomplish the refresher training materials that address the changes.
at least with some training added, we can (somewhat) reduce the 65,000 interpretations of the 52-10...
Refresher what now?
Oh, you mean that thing the olde dude was mumbling about the other night while I was talking to the other seniors about
how we're going to "whip these soft cadets into shape"?
Quote from: Eclipse on December 19, 2013, 03:53:43 PM
Refresher what now?
Oh, you mean that thing the olde dude was mumbling about the other night while I was talking to the other seniors about
how we're going to "whip these soft cadets into shape"?
Well, partly.
mostly on the "this is what it was, this is what the requirements are now. Do not step on anything, that is an order!"
Quote from: NIN on December 19, 2013, 04:05:26 PM...that is an order!"
A what now?
I'm sorry, Lt Col Durkins was helping me sew the wing patch on my blazer.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 19, 2013, 04:12:34 PM
Quote from: NIN on December 19, 2013, 04:05:26 PM...that is an order!"
A what now?
I'm sorry, Lt Col Durkins was helping me sew the wing patch on my blazer.
I was channeling 1SG 'Slasher' Williams. Won't happen again.
Cant' wait to see your blazer. should look awesome.
I know I'm being a PITA - I pretty much agree with everything that's in the new regs and policies, I
just don't know how you get this into people's heads, especially the ones who don't actually
agree with the ideas to start with.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 19, 2013, 04:22:43 PM
I know I'm being a PITA - I pretty much agree with everything that's in the new regs and policies, I
just don't know how you get this into people's heads, especially the ones who don't actually
agree with the ideas to start with.
They become walking boundary violations, and either get with the program, or find themselves on the outside looking in.
Problem solved, problem staying solved.
We have a culture of "knock it off" to an extent. Wouldn't think twice to tell a SM that if I felt it was needed in terms of CPP.
^ Both presuppose:
A: Command awareness.
B: Command interest in an uncomfortable conversation.
Which if we already had in proper quantity and proportion would probably negate the need for most of CPPT to begin with.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 19, 2013, 05:08:38 PM
We have a culture of "knock it off" to an extent. Wouldn't think twice to tell a SM that if I felt it was needed in terms of CPP.
Now you have a codified methodology against which to frame this discussion.
"Lieutenant, lets have a chat about these boundary violations of yours, mmmkay?"
followed by documentation (also codified) and a way to 'manage out' the ones who are too stodgy to comply or think that the rules don't apply to them, both categories of members who cause these problems over and over again.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 19, 2013, 04:22:43 PM
I know I'm being a PITA - I pretty much agree with everything that's in the new regs and policies, I
just don't know how you get this into people's heads, especially the ones who don't actually
agree with the ideas to start with.
ClueX4?
Certainly an option, though against the concrete we deal with sometimes, not always effective.
Quote from: NIN on December 19, 2013, 04:31:52 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 19, 2013, 04:22:43 PM
I know I'm being a PITA - I pretty much agree with everything that's in the new regs and policies, I
just don't know how you get this into people's heads, especially the ones who don't actually
agree with the ideas to start with.
They become walking boundary violations, and either get with the program, or find themselves on the outside looking in.
Problem solved, problem staying solved.
These so-called "boundary violations" will create more problems than they solve and will be the new "non renewal" tool for commanders to abuse. What if the cadet is over the age of majority and living on their own, we still gotta get Mommy and Daddy's permission to talk to them if I bump into them at Pizza Hut, sit in the booth next to them and talk CAP? From what i read that's a boundary violation. How about the 19 year old cadet taking college classes with the 20 yo senior member?
tell me why a commander should make it anyone's business as to who knew who before CAP? Seems like too often everyone's life story outside and away from CAP will have to be investigated before we determine if Captain Smith violated a boundary taking little cadet Gomer home, especially with CAP's long standing policy that neither Seniors nor cadets are CAP's liability when driving to and from meetings.
There also needs to be penalties for false allegations. If CAP, Inc. took abuse seriously a false accusation would get the accuser as fast a 2b as abusing a cadet.
it's beginning to look like the folks creating policy and looking for violations here are acting almost as creepy as the real creeps who actually abuse cadets.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 02, 2014, 06:29:38 PM
These so-called "boundary violations" will create more problems than they solve and will be the new "non renewal" tool for commanders to abuse. What if the cadet is over the age of majority and living on their own, we still gotta get Mommy and Daddy's permission to talk to them if I bump into them at Pizza Hut, sit in the booth next to them and talk CAP? From what i read that's a boundary violation. How about the 19 year old cadet taking college classes with the 20 yo senior member?
I have a feeling that a lot of these rules will be largely ignored among cadets. I have been more and more shifting towards making the cadet program end either at graduation from high school (and 18+ years) or simply 18 years of age.
Do not get me wrong, I earned my Spaatz at the age of 20, which I would not have been able to do if that were true.
However, you need to differentiate between adult leader and adult member. Adult leaders are only senior members, while adult members are senior members and cadets over the age of 18. Also, I think they need to define the term cadet better. Unfortunately, I missed the release of this document and did not submit any comments.
My points are:
QuoteIn-Person Contact. Colloquially known as the "coffee shop rule." Adult members will not meet with cadets outside of official CAP activities without the prior approval of the cadet's parent. If in-person contact is necessary, a third person must be present, and the meeting must take place in a public space (e.g. restaurant, mall, etc.). In the case of relationships that existed prior to the cadet or adult member joining CAP (e.g.: next-door neighbor or family friend), the cadet's parent may exempt the adult member from this requirement. No special paperwork is needed to document any of these situations; oral acknowledgements from the parent(s) are sufficient.
So here you have adult member. So this include cadets the age of majority, which is 18 for me. The way I read this is that a cadet 18 years of age and a cadet 17 years of age cannot meet outside of CAP. Also, what happens if it is a 20 year old cadet and a senior member. Does this 20 year old cadet still need parental permission? Or is he exempt because cadet refers to 17 and below here? Are both cadets exempt because of 3-3 Cadet to Cadet relations?
Do not get me wrong. This document is leaps and bounds over the old standard. However, I think the way it is currently written, which I hope has changed, it creates a lot of ambiguity with the terms cadets, adult members, and adult leaders when it comes to that transition between 18 and college.
QuoteSeems like too often everyone's life story outside and away from CAP will have to be investigated before we determine if Captain Smith violated a boundary taking little cadet Gomer home, especially with CAP's long standing policy that neither Seniors nor cadets are CAP's liability when driving to and from meetings.
In this case, this has already been address as long as he uses his personal vehicle.
QuoteNote that ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-owned vehicles is not considered part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member's risk (see CAPR 900-5, The CAP Insurance & Benefits Program, §10).
Anyone with "cadet" on their ID is not an "adult member", so a lot of the assumptions above fall short.
The restrictions are in regards to the member status of "Senior" vs "cadet".
As to cadets ignoring them, they do so at their own peril if they like CAP participation.
I, for one, would immediately discipline anyone I caught violating these clear rules.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2014, 08:05:50 PM
Anyone with "cadet" on their ID is not an "adult member", so a lot of the assumptions above fall short.
The restrictions are in regards to the member status of "Senior" vs "cadet".
As to cadets ignoring them, they do so at their own peril if they like CAP participation.
I, for one, would immediately discipline anyone I caught violating these clear rules.
Agree in principle, but it is not how the draft manual is written.
QuoteAdult Leader. CAP has a number of membership categories available to adults who serve in a supervisory and mentoring role over cadets. The term "adult leader" is used in this regulation to encompass senior members, cadet sponsor members, life members, and other members who lead cadets, but the term does not include cadet members.
h. Adult Member. For the purposes of this regulation, an adult member is an individual who has attained the age of majority, based on the jurisdiction of membership, and is assigned to any CAP membership category. College-age cadets, for example, are often adult members, depending upon the age of majority in a given jurisdiction.
Quote from: LSThiker on January 02, 2014, 07:23:05 PM
In this case, this has already been address as long as he uses his personal vehicle.
QuoteNote that ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-owned vehicles is not considered part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member's risk (see CAPR 900-5, The CAP Insurance & Benefits Program, §10).
Cadet Protection rules don't apply in a POV? Good luck with that.
Quote from: LSThiker on January 02, 2014, 09:51:26 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2014, 08:05:50 PM
Anyone with "cadet" on their ID is not an "adult member", so a lot of the assumptions above fall short.
The restrictions are in regards to the member status of "Senior" vs "cadet".
As to cadets ignoring them, they do so at their own peril if they like CAP participation.
I, for one, would immediately discipline anyone I caught violating these clear rules.
Agree in principle, but it is not how the draft manual is written.
QuoteAdult Leader. CAP has a number of membership categories available to adults who serve in a supervisory and mentoring role over cadets. The term "adult leader" is used in this regulation to encompass senior members, cadet sponsor members, life members, and other members who lead cadets, but the term does not include cadet members.
h. Adult Member. For the purposes of this regulation, an adult member is an individual who has attained the age of majority, based on the jurisdiction of membership, and is assigned to any CAP membership category. College-age cadets, for example, are often adult members, depending upon the age of majority in a given jurisdiction.
This is a ridiculous double-think. NHQ needs to decide if cadets "end" at 21 and just move on.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2014, 10:18:27 PM
This is a ridiculous double-think. NHQ needs to decide if cadets "end" at 21 and just move on.
Yup. Like I said, for this reason I have begun leaning more towards ending the cadet program at 18. It is a good break between high school and college (assuming if they attend) and it is a good point for where states consider them legal adults. However, I know this topic has been beaten ad nauseum.
Agree. In my experience, very few cadets remain engaged after turning 18 and/or graduating High School.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 02, 2014, 06:29:38 PMThere also needs to be penalties for false allegations. If CAP, Inc. took abuse seriously a false accusation would get the accuser as fast a 2b as abusing a cadet.
This is a -huge- problem in this organization. An incredibly
-HUGE- problem.
Along with that, you certainly want issues reported, and if there is fear in the reporting, they may not report things that need to be reported for fear of running afoul.
But there really needs to be something done where reports are made up on baseless BS in a retaliatory nature because groups of cadre have learned how to "work the system" and get SM's that are perceived to be blockers in their "progress" kicked to the curb. There's a few fairly high profile CAP people who've been hoodwinked by some really creative and smoozing moves and put ons..
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 02, 2014, 11:16:45 PM
Agree. In my experience, very few cadets remain engaged after turning 18 and/or graduating High School.
Yeah, that nasty little bugger called life tends to get in the way.
A possible solution is to require all cadets to become FO's upon reaching the age of 18, with all the legal requirements applicable to other adults. Meanwhile, allow them the option of going through to the Spaatz Award. While simultaneously progressing in the Senior Member Program. Basically resurrecting the STP and ACT programs of the 60's and 70's
MSG MAC That idea has been recommended up the food chain and nothing resulted. The main objection from cadets is the FO grade insignia. They contend that Senior Members consider them "super cadets" because the grade insignia doesn't show any Senior Member recognized grade. That can be resolved by going back to the old, discontinued USAF Warrent Officer grade insignia.
Cutting off the cadet program at 18 and not allowing the FO to continue to earn the Spaatz has always been a sticking point and a major reason for an 18 year old NOT to turn Senior. A large percentage of cadets earn the Spaatz after their 18th Birthday. It's a dis-service to stop a cadet from attempting to earn the Spaatz between 18 and 21 years of age. Thus there are two points to be addressed, first the grade insignia and second allowing an 18-21 year old FO to continue to progress in the cadet program while still working on Senior Member Professional Development.
One other possible problem. restarting the old OTC or STP programs would require changes in many CAP Regulations, 52-10, 52-16, 39-1 and many Emergency Service regulations.
It's simple - you can't have things both ways, but instead of accept this, CAP wants to dance
around the edges and try to satisfy everyone, to the satisfaction of no one.
If society, and in many case the law, have decided that people are adults at 18, then so be it.
End the cadet program at 18 and move on.
If 18 year old butter bars are too much to handle, then raise the 18 requirements and leave it at that.
Stay in CAP from 18-21 as SMWOG. Restrict certain duties to "over 21" such as command, finances,
property, and move on.
Done.
Sigh. I've tried to stay out of this thread, but since it has veered back onto well-plowed ground, let me again point out a couple of things.
1. No one has been able to articulate how having cadets in the 18-21 age range is a problem in the first place. I appreciate some of you think that Wilson and Spaatz got it wrong when they established an outstanding and challenging cadet program that included cadets through age 21. But what problem is it that we are trying to "solve" by taking a meat axe to our program?
2. "Cadethood" and "adulthood" are unrelated concepts. And never have been. The age of majority, BTW, is not the same in every state, commonwealth, or other other place where cadet units are currently located. The age of majority has changed several times in the US, and may well change again. Ditto for voting ages, "ages of consent," etc.
Uncle Sam has cadets over and under 18 in each of his programs. JROTC, ROTC, and each of the service academies. Historically, USMA has had cadets as old as 40. If Uncle Sam doesn't care about some artificial line at age 18, why should we?
High schools across the country have students over and under the age of 18. Seems to work. Same for colleges and universities.
There is simply not a problem with this particular aspect of our terrific CP.
Take all this wonderful thought and energy and turn it to solving some real CP issues. Like funding. Or recruiting in urban areas.
Or even the original topic of this particular thread.
Quote from: Ned on January 04, 2014, 06:16:02 PM1. No one has been able to articulate how having cadets in the 18-21 age range is a problem in the first place. I appreciate some of you think that Wilson and Spaatz got it wrong when they established an outstanding and challenging cadet program that included cadets through age 21. But what problem is it that we are trying to "solve" by taking a meat axe to our program?
For the most past I agree with this, but if there's no issues, then why is NHQ creating
this new "mini-class" of membership - "Adult members are anyone over 18".
Quote from: LSThiker on January 02, 2014, 07:23:05 PM
QuoteIn-Person Contact. Colloquially known as the "coffee shop rule." Adult members will not meet with cadets outside of official CAP activities without the prior approval of the cadet's parent. If in-person contact is necessary, a third person must be present, and the meeting must take place in a public space (e.g. restaurant, mall, etc.). In the case of relationships that existed prior to the cadet or adult member joining CAP (e.g.: next-door neighbor or family friend), the cadet's parent may exempt the adult member from this requirement. No special paperwork is needed to document any of these situations; oral acknowledgements from the parent(s) are sufficient.
So here you have adult member. So this include cadets the age of majority, which is 18 for me. The way I read this is that a cadet 18 years of age and a cadet 17 years of age cannot meet outside of CAP. Also, what happens if it is a 20 year old cadet and a senior member. Does this 20 year old cadet still need parental permission? Or is he exempt because cadet refers to 17 and below here? Are both cadets exempt because of 3-3 Cadet to Cadet relations?
So Ned, since you are a legal guy, can you help me understand this better? Obviously I know this is still just a draft and has no base until fully published.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 04, 2014, 06:21:29 PM
... why is NHQ creating
this new "mini-class" of membership - "Adult members are anyone over 18".
I think it goes to the bit about CPP applying to anyone who works with cadets, which is not just senior members. you have life members, cadet sponsor members, legislative members, aerospace members etc., so (maybe?) to make every odd duck fit into the reg, they go with "adult leader" as a catchall and go with "adult member" if you're talking about legal age.
Quoteg. Adult Leader. CAP has a number of membership categories available to adults who serve in a supervisory and mentoring role over cadets. The term "adult leader" is used in this regulation to encompass senior members, cadet sponsor members, life members, and other members who lead cadets, but the term does not include cadet members.
h. Adult Member. For the purposes of this regulation, an adult member is an individual who has attained the age of majority,   , and is assigned to any CAP membership category. College- age cadets, for example, are often adult members, depending upon the age of majority in a given jurisdiction.
Not the same thing - CSMs have had level one and CPPT and are intended to be chaperones, the other categories, Lifers, Legislative, AEM, have not, and have no business
being left alone with, nor in charge of, cadets.
Quote from: Ned on January 04, 2014, 06:16:02 PM
Sigh. I've tried to stay out of this thread, but since it has veered back onto well-plowed ground, let me again point out a couple of things.
1. No one has been able to articulate how having cadets in the 18-21 age range is a problem in the first place. I appreciate some of you think that Wilson and Spaatz got it wrong when they established an outstanding and challenging cadet program that included cadets through age 21. But what problem is it that we are trying to "solve" by taking a meat axe to our program?
2. "Cadethood" and "adulthood" are unrelated concepts. And never have been. The age of majority, BTW, is not the same in every state, commonwealth, or other other place where cadet units are currently located. The age of majority has changed several times in the US, and may well change again. Ditto for voting ages, "ages of consent," etc.
Uncle Sam has cadets over and under 18 in each of his programs. JROTC, ROTC, and each of the service academies. Historically, USMA has had cadets as old as 40. If Uncle Sam doesn't care about some artificial line at age 18, why should we?
High schools across the country have students over and under the age of 18. Seems to work. Same for colleges and universities.
There is simply not a problem with this particular aspect of our terrific CP.
Take all this wonderful thought and energy and turn it to solving some real CP issues. Like funding. Or recruiting in urban areas.
Or even the original topic of this particular thread.
If this were true, then why has CAP forever treated the 20 year old c/Msgt and the 13 year old one as if both were minors? CAP has never addressed a cadet in any other than a cadet up until we invented this new status of Adult Member.
If CAP is now recognizing that cadets over the age majority in their location are now adults, the so-called bright line rule simply makes CAP, Inc. sound a little creepy, telling adults who and who they cannot interact with. We are not the military, we are not academia. we are a government funded humanitarian organization with a youth program.
We can protect the youth in the .org without telling ADULTS who they can and cannot date. Putting cadets of legal majority in an adult member status is a great step in that direction but applying the bright line rule to them is ridiculous and in all honestly will continue to be ignored by the bulk of the organization.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 04, 2014, 10:09:36 PM
If this were true, then why has CAP forever treated the 20 year old c/Msgt and the 13 year old one as if both were minors?
Because we haven't. We've always treated minors like minors and adults like adults.
And, we've always treated cadets like cadets, and seniors as seniors.
Of course, some cadets are adults. And some seniors are minors. Kinda depends on the local laws where the member happens to be standing at any particular time.
Which is why the concepts of "cadethood" and "adulthood" are unrelated.
QuoteIf CAP is now recognizing that cadets over the age majority in their location are now adults, the so-called bright line rule simply makes CAP, Inc. sound a little creepy, telling adults who and who they cannot interact with. We are not the military, we are not academia. we are a government funded humanitarian organization with a youth program.
You've said this before, of course. But repetition doesn't make it correct.
As you know, our CPP rules are the mainstream approach. No major youth-serving organization in the country allows the leadership to date the youth they are supposed to be training.
Talk about "creepy." (To use your word.)
Feel free to show me I'm wrong. Go ahead and list the "government funded humanitarian organizations with a youth program" where the rules allow the adult leaders to use the youth organization as a dating pool.
I've invited you to this before, of course, but so far you haven't been able to do so.
And, BTW, I do not concur with your basic premise. Because we are a bit military and a bit academic. Indeed, those are two critical aspects of our cadet program. Take either or both away, and what is left would not be recognizable as the CAP cadet program.
QuoteWe can protect the youth in the .org without telling ADULTS who they can and cannot date. Putting cadets of legal majority in an adult member status is a great step in that direction but applying the bright line rule to them is ridiculous and in all honestly will continue to be ignored by the bulk of the organization.
I think you are perhaps being blinded in this regard by your personal biases. Assuming that you are even a member in the first place, I will just have to put a little faith in your personal integrity, and rely on the oath you took to follow the regulations. Including the regulations you disagree with.
Quote from: LSThiker on January 04, 2014, 06:24:30 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on January 02, 2014, 07:23:05 PM
QuoteIn-Person Contact. Colloquially known as the "coffee shop rule." Adult members will not meet with cadets outside of official CAP activities without the prior approval of the cadet's parent. If in-person contact is necessary, a third person must be present, and the meeting must take place in a public space (e.g. restaurant, mall, etc.). In the case of relationships that existed prior to the cadet or adult member joining CAP (e.g.: next-door neighbor or family friend), the cadet's parent may exempt the adult member from this requirement. No special paperwork is needed to document any of these situations; oral acknowledgements from the parent(s) are sufficient.
So here you have adult member. So this include cadets the age of majority, which is 18 for me. The way I read this is that a cadet 18 years of age and a cadet 17 years of age cannot meet outside of CAP. Also, what happens if it is a 20 year old cadet and a senior member. Does this 20 year old cadet still need parental permission? Or is he exempt because cadet refers to 17 and below here? Are both cadets exempt because of 3-3 Cadet to Cadet relations?
So Ned, since you are a legal guy, can you help me understand this better? Obviously I know this is still just a draft and has no base until fully published.
Good catch. That's a typo in the draft. Should read as "adult leaders" instead of adult members for the "coffee shop" rule.
Score another point for allowing review and comment on draft regulations.
The 18 to 21 year old group is in a gray area since under most state laws they are adults. But as long as they have the title "Cadet" they are restricted from adult activities as far as CAP is concerned. Can a 20 year old cadet date an 18 year old senior member? Both are considered adults. Ned and I disagree with the so called problem of the 18 to 21 year old member, be he/she cadet or senior member. As an 18 year old cadet can't get O-rides, they lose some of the benifits of being a cadet, but still they lack the advantages of senior membership. The problem I see is that CAP doesn't look outside the box to look at the 18 to 21 year old member. Many 128-21 year olds drop out of the program since they are lumped into the 12 to 18 year old "cadet" program with no peer group. This is the area that needs to be adressed by CAP.
The fact that other organizations have people that they call "cadets" is sort of irrelevant to the conversation of how CAP requires our cadets to be treated.
Are there any states that have an age of majority over the age of 18?
I see it a little differently:
At age 18, they have a choice of how to join- as a cadet or senior member. Prior to age 18 and when reaching age 19, the fate is sealed.
Additionally, at reaching 18, they can choose to remain a cadet or switch to senior member.
Personally, I'd -love- to have that choice.
The O-Ride thing? I suspect the program has an aim at influencing the cadet through that specific time that would get them started on a career training path, and where the funding comes from probably has a lot to do with it.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 05, 2014, 04:03:32 PM
The fact that other organizations have people that they call "cadets" is sort of irrelevant to the conversation of how CAP requires our cadets to be treated.
Really? Why do you think so?
I suspect we would agree that every member should be treated fairly and respectfully regardless of the title / classification of their membership category. And that should be true of every youth-serving organization.
But military cadet programs do share some rather distinct and arguably unique challenges when it comes to youth protection issues. In that sense it makes a great deal of sense to compare ourselves to similar organizations.
But I suspect we can also agree that we are also comparable in important ways to other organizations like Scouting and Big Brothers / Big Sisters.
But "irrelevant" seems a little overstated.
QuoteAre there any states that have an age of majority over the age of 18?
Yes, at least two - Alabama and Nebraska. Not to mention Puerto Rico.
But since the age of majority is unrelated to cadet status, this information is just a bit of legal trivia.
And for those who enjoy legal trivia as much as I do, we can look at some other important age-based legal distinctions: the ages at which state / local laws prohibit (or allow) marriage, leaving compulsory schooling, drinking, voting, consenting to sexual acts, purchasing a firearm, gambling, criminal responsibility, working, purchasing tobacco, or even becoming President of the United States.
(The last is an age-based restriction found in the US Constitution.)
All fun legal trivia, but none of these restrictions have much to do with our terrific cadet program.
And Bill, you're right that we disagree on this issue (actually, my position is that there isn't an "issue" to disagree about in the first place), but it isn't fair to say that "CAP doesn't look outside the box" at our 18-21 cadet cohort. We look at it all the time. Sure, they don't get O-rides (an artifact of Federal Workman's Comp law rather than CAP policy, BTW), but these college-aged troops have access to tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships, activities like IACE, and some of the best leadership training available.
And finally, a bit of historical trivia - our retention rate for our 18-21 year old troops is essentially the same today as it was when the prevailing age of majority in the US was 21.
(Not as good as we would like, of course, because cadets do indeed usually reduce their CAP involvement due to college, careers, family, etc.. The point is that these circumstances are largely independent of the current age of majority in a given jurisdiction.)
Ned,
What, exactly, does this mean in a CAP context?
"h. Adult Member. For the purposes of this regulation, an adult member is an individual who has attained the age of majority, based on the jurisdiction of membership, and is assigned to any CAP membership category. College-age cadets, for example, are often adult members, depending upon the age of majority in a given jurisdiction."
Quote from: RiverAux on January 05, 2014, 04:03:32 PM
The fact that other organizations have people that they call "cadets" is sort of irrelevant to the conversation of how CAP requires our cadets to be treated.
Are there any states that have an age of majority over the age of 18?
Do not know how accurate this is regarding age of majority, but nevertheless answers your question:
http://contests.about.com/od/sweepstakes101/a/agemajoristate.htm (http://contests.about.com/od/sweepstakes101/a/agemajoristate.htm)
Quote from: Ned on January 05, 2014, 03:27:49 AM
Good catch. That's a typo in the draft. Should read as "adult leaders" instead of adult members for the "coffee shop" rule.
Score another point for allowing review and comment on draft regulations.
Okay, so it is supposed to say Adult Leader. Unfortunately, I still have some questions:
QuoteIn-Person Contact. Colloquially known as the "coffee shop rule." Adult members will not meet with cadets outside of official CAP activities without the prior approval of the cadet's parent. If in-person contact is necessary, a third person must be present, and the meeting must take place in a public space (e.g. restaurant, mall, etc.). In the case of relationships that existed prior to the cadet or adult member joining CAP (e.g.: next-door neighbor or family friend), the cadet's parent may exempt the adult member from this requirement. No special paperwork is needed to document any of these situations; oral acknowledgements from the parent(s) are sufficient.
So any adult leader cannot meet with cadets outside of CAP without parental permission. What happens if the cadet is 20? Is parental permission really needed since now they are over the age of majority? What happens when you get into the gray area of two members (21 year old cadet to senior member and a 20 year old cadet) both in college? Assuming no prior relationship, are these two members really restricted from meeting outside of CAP. For example, study groups, ROTC, college activities, etc? We will leave the bar nights/house parties off the table for this discussion. :)
Another question: so why is it that transportation using my vehicle is not considered an official CAP activity and is not subject to these rules, but meeting outside at a "coffee shop" is still subjected to the rules even if it is not an official CAP activity?
Sorry about the questions, really am just trying to understand the wording and national position better. I understand the strict no officer/no NCO relations in the military since as officers we can have legal authority over troops. This is why usually commanders send 1SG on domestic disputes rather than going themselves or send 1SG to go bail a soldier out of jail.
Quote from: Ned on January 05, 2014, 06:46:57 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on January 05, 2014, 04:03:32 PM
The fact that other organizations have people that they call "cadets" is sort of irrelevant to the conversation of how CAP requires our cadets to be treated.
Really? Why do you think so?
Why I certainly think that CAP can learn from other organizations (and in fact I'm often criticized for saying that there are some things CAP could learn from a certain other military auxiliary), I think what we should be focusing on is
YOUTH protection policies, not
CADET protection policies. Those are two entirely different things.
If there are certain
YOUTH protection practices that we can borrow from others, sure, lets do it.
However, as is pointed out a cadet is not always a youth.
Once a member hits the age of majority in their state, they should be treated exactly the same as any other adult in CAP in regards to harassment, outside-of-CAP contact, relationships, etc. If two CAP senior members can start a relationship or meet outside of CAP I see no reason that a 18 (or whatever the majority is in their state) year old cadet and a senior member, whether 18 or 25 can't do the same.
Quote from: LSThiker on January 05, 2014, 07:49:02 PM
Okay, so it is supposed to say Adult Leader. Unfortunately, I still have some questions:
No worries. That's we posted it.
Quote
QuoteIn-Person Contact. Colloquially known as the "coffee shop rule." Adult members will not meet with cadets outside of official CAP activities without the prior approval of the cadet's parent. If in-person contact is necessary, a third person must be present, and the meeting must take place in a public space (e.g. restaurant, mall, etc.). In the case of relationships that existed prior to the cadet or adult member joining CAP (e.g.: next-door neighbor or family friend), the cadet's parent may exempt the adult member from this requirement. No special paperwork is needed to document any of these situations; oral acknowledgements from the parent(s) are sufficient.
What happens if the cadet is 20? Is parental permission really needed since now they are over the age of majority?
Yes, as it is written. I think the "age of majority" aspect is a distractor here. We are talking about our internal rules, not whether such a permission is legally required or enforceable in a court of law.
Do you think we should do it another way? We could probably figure out a way to write in something about cadets over 18 not needing parental permission in some jurisdictions, but what does that add? The proposed rule has a small advantage in that it makes the rules uniform for all cadets, and accordingly makes administering the program that much easier for the volunteer adult leaders working at squadrons.
QuoteWhat happens when you get into the gray area of two members (21 year old cadet to senior member and a 20 year old cadet) both in college? Assuming no prior relationship, are these two members really restricted from meeting outside of CAP. For example, study groups, ROTC, college activities, etc? We will leave the bar nights/house parties off the table for this discussion. :)
Repeat after me: "There is no gray area." A member is either a cadet or a senior. The relationships between seniors and cadets are clearly defined in the draft reg.
So, let's look at your example. A senior and a cadet happen to be enrolled in the same college. There is certainly nothing in the draft that suggests that this is improper. We are not suggesting that seniors have to take the side exit from the mall or leave a baseball game just because a cadet happens to be present.
Take a look at paragraph 2-5. What is prohibited is "personal, peer-to-peer relationships" with cadets. The senior must develop and maintain a professional distance like between a teacher and students.
QuoteAnother question: so why is it that transportation using my vehicle is not considered an official CAP activity and is not subject to these rules, but meeting outside at a "coffee shop" is still subjected to the rules even if it is not an official CAP activity?
I'm a little confused by your question. We regulate both transportation and coffee shop meetings. Neither are likely to be official CAP activities, but both are governed by the draft regulation.
What am I missing?
And Bob, I'm similarly confused by your last question. "College-aged cadets, for example, are often adult members, depending on the age of majority in a given jurisdiction" seems relatively straightforward, given that the age of majority is not the same in every location where we have cadets. As just one example, a 19 year old cadet attending college in San Jose, California is an adult (hence an adult member), but that same cadet attending college in San Juan, Puerto Rico is not. At least while physically in Puerto Rico.
Should we reword that?
Quote from: RiverAux on January 05, 2014, 08:37:02 PM
Why I certainly think that CAP can learn from other organizations (and in fact I'm often criticized for saying that there are some things CAP could learn from a certain other military auxiliary), I think what we should be focusing on is YOUTH protection policies, not CADET protection policies. Those are two entirely different things.
If there are certain YOUTH protection practices that we can borrow from others, sure, lets do it.
However, as is pointed out a cadet is not always a youth.
Once a member hits the age of majority in their state, they should be treated exactly the same as any other adult in CAP in regards to harassment, outside-of-CAP contact, relationships, etc. If two CAP senior members can start a relationship or meet outside of CAP I see no reason that a 18 (or whatever the majority is in their state) year old cadet and a senior member, whether 18 or 25 can't do the same.
I hear you.
But you have to appreciate that your position is not the mainstream.
No major or reputable youth-serving organization permits the adult leadership to prey on the youth members, even if those youth members have hit the local age of majority.
That's why Scouting leaders cannot date even the 18 year old Explorers / Venturers.
And high school guidance counselors cannot date their 18 year old students.
Neither can even civilian West Point faculty date 23 year old cadets.
But I'll renew my invitation. Can you find any reputable youth serving organizations that will allow their adult leadership to date the youth members? I freely admit I did not check them all, and I may have overlooked one.
But perhaps neither of us will be able to convince the other that seniors dating cadets is a good idea.
Of course, the absolute prohibition on senior-cadet dating is not new; it has been in our doctrine for years. And I suppose ultimately, it is not me you need to convince. You will need to convince a majority of the BoG to change our policy. This draft reg is just an attempt to create a regulation that supports the BoGs officially adopted cadet protection policy.
Quote from: Ned on January 05, 2014, 09:33:22 PM
And I suppose ultimately, it is not me you need to convince. You will need to convince a majority of the BoG to change our policy. This draft reg is just an attempt to create a regulation that supports the BoGs officially adopted cadet protection policy.
Thats the case with everything said on CAPTalk. No need to even mention it.
QuoteNo major or reputable youth-serving organization permits the adult leadership to prey on the youth members, even if those youth members have hit the local age of majority.
As a matter of curiosity, are there other youth-serving organizations that have members of the same age that can be in either the "youth" or "adult" category as is the case in CAP?
You must admit that we have a very small number of 18-21 year-old cadets and a very small number of 18-21 year-old senior members for whom these rules are ridiculous if you put a member from each of these categories together at the same time.
No one is ever going to convince me that we have any rational basis to distinguish between how two members of the same age are to be treated in regards to personal relationships or something as innocuous as a coffee shop meeting that would otherwise be within CAP regulations. This in particular is where the military examples that are often given fall apart since our adult leaders have no real authority over cadets as is the case for those leading "cadets" in military environments.
Quote from: Ned on January 05, 2014, 09:15:14 PM
Yes, as it is written. I think the "age of majority" aspect is a distractor here. We are talking about our internal rules, not whether such a permission is legally required or enforceable in a court of law.
Do you think we should do it another way? We could probably figure out a way to write in something about cadets over 18 not needing parental permission in some jurisdictions, but what does that add? The proposed rule has a small advantage in that it makes the rules uniform for all cadets, and accordingly makes administering the program that much easier for the volunteer adult leaders working at squadrons.
It would be more uniform to leave it as is. However, from my personal experience (and definitely not all parents are this way), if my father would have received a phone call when I was in college asking if I could meet with another adult, his response would have been "he is an adult, that is not my choice". After the second time, I am sure he would stop answering those calls.
Also, what happens if that "age of majority" cadet no longer has parents (death, orphan, release custody from the state, etc)? Or has parents but no longer maintains communication with them? Or are no longer deemed competent? Or was an emancipated minor? Granted, probably very rare, but well within the realm of possibility in today's age. None of those things would require him/her to terminate his/her cadet membership.
Actually that brings up an interesting question. How does CAP deal with emancipated minors that are cadets? I do not see anything that requires them to terminate their cadet membership. Since they are no longer under control of a guardian or parent, how would they go about getting parental signatures?
QuoteSo, let's look at your example. A senior and a cadet happen to be enrolled in the same college. There is certainly nothing in the draft that suggests that this is improper. We are not suggesting that seniors have to take the side exit from the mall or leave a baseball game just because a cadet happens to be present.
Sorry that was not what I was suggesting. Let me try and clarify as I think this would be easier in real-time communication rather than over an internet:
So I understand that 2-5 states maintaining professional relations. Section 2-5c states that a senior member and a cadet will not meet outside of CAP activity. If they do, then it must be in a public area and must have a third person present.
So the scenario is two members a cadet and a senior member are in the same college. They are both taking the same course. As classes with 300+ people can be rather daunting for meeting new people, does this prohibit them from forming a study group?
What happens if they are both in ROTC and they meet for matters regarding ROTC in private. As with all things, nothing ever stays solely on task and of course they start talking CAP (or even if they do not). Common sense would say "not a big concern", but the commander decides to give a verbal warning or a written warning. Or they are both on a committee at their school?
Basically, outside of CAP, their personal lives have times where they need to meet together for matters entirely not related to CAP.
QuoteI'm a little confused by your question. We regulate both transportation and coffee shop meetings. Neither are likely to be official CAP activities, but both are governed by the draft regulation.
What am I missing?
Sorry, should have quoted that:
QuoteTransportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family members or personal acquaintances (see §2-5a2) to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least 3 (adult leader driver plus 2 cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and 1 cadet). Note that ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-owned vehicles is not considered part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member's risk (see CAPR 900-5, The CAP Insurance & Benefits Program, §10).
Within this section, I take it to understand that risk deals with the subject of this paragraph, which is having at least 3 personnel present when transporting. Now, if risk really means insurance, then I would clarify what is really being said by that sentence as you shifted the subject from being having 3 personnel to insurance matters without a transition. However, if by risk you mean that a member does not need to have 3 personnel since it is not considered official travel, then why is that not covered but meeting outside of CAP is?
Quote from: LSThiker on January 05, 2014, 10:21:34 PM
Also, what happens if that "age of majority" cadet no longer has parents (death, orphan, release custody from the state, etc)? Or has parents but no longer maintains communication with them? Or are no longer deemed competent? Or was an emancipated minor? Granted, probably very rare, but well within the realm of possibility in today's age. None of those things would require him/her to terminate his/her cadet membership.
You're certainly correct that these and "emancipated minor" scenarios are very rare indeed, but they are certainly nothing new. And we deal with these ".1%" situations as we always have, with commanders using their common sense with guidance from higher and JA when necessary. If we let lawyers write our regs to deal with every theoretically possible situation, we'd have law books useful only to legal professionals instead of clear regulations useful to parents and volunteers at the units.
Quote
So the scenario is two members a cadet and a senior member are in the same college. They are both taking the same course. As classes with 300+ people can be rather daunting for meeting new people, does this prohibit them from forming a study group?
Since all the study groups I've ever had involved extensive peer-to-peer interaction, the answer is appears to be "yes, that kind of contact is prohibited between seniors and cadets." But let's take a look at why that needs to be the rule. If it were otherwise, the exception would tend to eat the rule. Any senior caught improperly fraternizing could simply claim "hey, we were just studying for that, ahhh, on-line course we are going to take. Yeah, that's the ticket. We was in a 'study group.'"
QuoteWhat happens if they are both in ROTC and they meet for matters regarding ROTC in private.
Assuming this is some sort of mandatory thing (required class project, required leadership lab stuff, etc.), we are probably talking about the kind of professional relationships permitted in paragraph 2-5 of the draft.
Commanders will have to exercise good common sense in giving guidance to the members in these rare and unusual situations.
Quote
QuoteTransportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family members or personal acquaintances (see §2-5a2) to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least 3 (adult leader driver plus 2 cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and 1 cadet). Note that ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-owned vehicles is not considered part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member's risk (see CAPR 900-5, The CAP Insurance & Benefits Program, §10).
Within this section, I take it to understand that risk deals with the subject of this paragraph, which is having at least 3 personnel present when transporting. Now, if risk really means insurance, then I would clarify what is really being said by that sentence as you shifted the subject from being having 3 personnel to insurance matters without a transition. However, if by risk you mean that a member does not need to have 3 personnel since it is not considered official travel, then why is that not covered but meeting outside of CAP is?
Yeah, that little bit was the result of "committee writing and compromise." Although I wasn't happy with it, I thought it was clear that the reference to the insurance reg made it clear that the reference to the risk meant insurance stuff, not CPP stuff.
We'll take another look at the wording.
Quote from: Ned on January 05, 2014, 11:22:54 PM
Assuming this is some sort of mandatory thing (required class project, required leadership lab stuff, etc.), we are probably talking about the kind of professional relationships permitted in paragraph 2-5 of the draft.
Where did you do ROTC? Yeah, when I met people for ROTC planning, talking, development, etc, it would definitely not meet 2-5. I have met cadets in bars in order to coordinate supplies, operations, etc. I know other university cadets that planned those things at strip clubs. Actually I think any time we met, alcohol was pretty much involved in some fashion.
QuoteCommanders will have to exercise good common sense in giving guidance to the members in these rare and unusual situations.
While rare when looking at the whole organization, they are not that rare. Those examples are actually from personal experience.
Quote from: LSThiker on January 05, 2014, 11:53:53 PM
Where did you do ROTC? Yeah, when I met people for ROTC planning, talking, development, etc, it would definitely not meet 2-5. I have met cadets in bars in order to coordinate supplies, operations, etc. I know other university cadets that planned those things at strip clubs. Actually I think any time we met, alcohol was pretty much involved in some fashion.
I clearly did my ROTC at the wrong university. Never once met another cadet in a bar or strip club. And no alcohol, even at the commissioning ceremony. Oh well, my loss I guess.
Quote
While rare when looking at the whole organization, they are not that rare. Those examples are actually from personal experience.
Maybe we just mean different things by "rare." In this discussion, I mean that the kind of "what if's" that you are presenting will apply to far less than 1% of the cadets in CAP. (Heck, less than 10% of our cadets are 18+ to begin with.)
I can be happy with a regulation that provides clear guidance for well over 99% of the situations your typical squadron commander may encounter, and provides some rationale to allow commanders to work through the rest in a fair and consistent manner.
(Back to football.)
You know, once upon a time we had a cadet protection program for a well-defined reason: To keep pedophiles from our underaged cadets. It was zero tolerance for reasons obvious: Adults diddling kids =bad.
I've said for years that romantic relationships between adults, be they cadet or senior, was CAP,Inc.'s proverbial camel's nose under the tent and that we needed to be vigilant that the pendulum wasn't swinging too far the other way.
Well folks, it's swung. We've fully left the idea of protecting minors and are now allowing CAP, Inc. to pretty much restrict legal adults in not just a social setting but also injecting itself in areas such as other organizations, our employers and even academia. There is no logical reason for CAP, Inc. to inject themselves into the activities of legal adults outside of CAP and I can tell you from those in CAP that I've discussed this with that this part of the CPP will likely be met with noncompliance. You've already got rank and file generally looking the other way in regard to adult cadets and younger senior members dating as it stands now.
Myself and several others have looked over the list of supposed boundary violations. First thoughts were how easy it would be for a commander to use the vagueness of many of these and/or his interpretation to terminate memberships of anyone he wanted, not unlike the nonrenewal debacle we had several years ago.
Sorry, but there's no explanation of this new policy that can make this logical and certain folks simply wanting us to move the subject along doesn't cut it. NHq is flat out of line implementing this upgraded policy.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 20, 2014, 03:56:02 AMWell folks, it's swung. We've fully left the idea of protecting minors and are now allowing CAP, Inc. to pretty much restrict legal adults in not just a social setting but also injecting itself in areas such as other organizations, our employers and even academia. There is no logical reason for CAP, Inc. to inject themselves into the activities of legal adults outside of CAP and I can tell you from those in CAP that I've discussed this with that this part of the CPP will likely be met with noncompliance.
Plenty of organizations, for very good reasons, prohibit fraternization between employees, or between subordinates and superiors, or based on any number of factors.
"Non-compliance" = "non-membership", and frankly, if a simple, clear, and appropriate rule like this is too hard to comply with, for whatever reason, we don't need those people in
our organization.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 20, 2014, 03:56:02 AM
You've already got rank and file generally looking the other way in regard to adult cadets and younger senior members dating as it stands now.
Really? Where? Those "rank and file" need to be "ex-members"
Quote from: Ned on January 05, 2014, 03:27:49 AM
Quote from: LSThiker on January 04, 2014, 06:24:30 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on January 02, 2014, 07:23:05 PM
QuoteIn-Person Contact. Colloquially known as the "coffee shop rule." Adult members will not meet with cadets outside of official CAP activities without the prior approval of the cadet's parent. If in-person contact is necessary, a third person must be present, and the meeting must take place in a public space (e.g. restaurant, mall, etc.). In the case of relationships that existed prior to the cadet or adult member joining CAP (e.g.: next-door neighbor or family friend), the cadet's parent may exempt the adult member from this requirement. No special paperwork is needed to document any of these situations; oral acknowledgements from the parent(s) are sufficient.
So here you have adult member. So this include cadets the age of majority, which is 18 for me. The way I read this is that a cadet 18 years of age and a cadet 17 years of age cannot meet outside of CAP. Also, what happens if it is a 20 year old cadet and a senior member. Does this 20 year old cadet still need parental permission? Or is he exempt because cadet refers to 17 and below here? Are both cadets exempt because of 3-3 Cadet to Cadet relations?
So Ned, since you are a legal guy, can you help me understand this better? Obviously I know this is still just a draft and has no base until fully published.
Good catch. That's a typo in the draft. Should read as "adult leaders" instead of adult members for the "coffee shop" rule.
Score another point for allowing review and comment on draft regulations.
Just out of curiosity how does this work if the CAP relationship is not known. (for instance: I belong to a bookclub in my town in CT. Another person in the club makes some cogent comments regarding the book we are reading. After the meeting I suggest we adjourn to the coffee shop to continue our discussion. I later find that this person is a 18 year old cadet in a different squadron then the one I am a member of, have I violated regulations? Am I now supposed to ask any person I speak to a) if they are between 18 and 21 and b) if a is yes are they members of the Civil Air Patrol?
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 04:50:47 AM
Just out of curiosity how does this work [ the coffee shop rule] if the CAP relationship is not known. (for instance: I belong to a bookclub in my town in CT. Another person in the club makes some cogent comments regarding the book we are reading. After the meeting I suggest we adjourn to the coffee shop to continue our discussion. I later find that this person is a 18 year old cadet in a different squadron then the one I am a member of, have I violated regulations?
Robert,
Assuming there was not a third person present and/or you did not have parental permission to meet with cadet outside of authorized CAP activities, then the draft regulation would indeed have been violated. Unknowingly, of course, but still violated.
It is entirely possible to violate CAP regulations unknowingly; it's just usually no big deal. Heck, I'll bet we've all done it many times. I know I have. Examples include missing a suspense on a report you didn't know you had to write, wearing the old IACE ribbon because you didn't know it had been changed, addressing someone as "captain" because you didn't know they had been promoted to major, accidentally buying a prohibited item at AAFES, etc., etc.
So how should you handle the situation in your hypo?
You handle it the same way that the Scouts and all other youth-serving organizations do. Once you discover that the person is a cadet, you simply follow the regulation and arrange for a third person to be present at any meetings (which shouldn't be a problem for an active book club) and make sure you have the required parental permission.
If it were me, I would also advise the responsible commanders that I had met with the cadet and the circumstances.
But surely you can see the reason why it has to be written the way it is: to avoid "willful ignorance."
QuoteGosh, you can't discipline me! I didn't know the cadet was 15! Honest. Now that I think about it, I didn't even know the cadet was in CAP, and you can't prove otherwise. So I'm home free. Just like the last two times.
The draft regulation is intended to provide the framework and rationale to allow commanders to exercise their common sense and leadership to protect both cadets and seniors from harm.
I have faith in the wisdom of our volunteer leaders, especially those at the squadron level. And particularly when the can see both the rule, and the reasons for it.
Quote from: Ned on January 20, 2014, 07:31:46 AM
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 04:50:47 AM
Just out of curiosity how does this work [ the coffee shop rule] if the CAP relationship is not known. (for instance: I belong to a bookclub in my town in CT. Another person in the club makes some cogent comments regarding the book we are reading. After the meeting I suggest we adjourn to the coffee shop to continue our discussion. I later find that this person is a 18 year old cadet in a different squadron then the one I am a member of, have I violated regulations?
Robert,
Assuming there was not a third person present and/or you did not have parental permission to meet with cadet outside of authorized CAP activities, then the draft regulation would indeed have been violated. Unknowingly, of course, but still violated.
It is entirely possible to violate CAP regulations unknowingly; it's just usually no big deal. Heck, I'll bet we've all done it many times. I know I have. Examples include missing a suspense on a report you didn't know you had to write, wearing the old IACE ribbon because you didn't know it had been changed, addressing someone as "captain" because you didn't know they had been promoted to major, accidentally buying a prohibited item at AAFES, etc., etc.
So how should you handle the situation in your hypo?
You handle it the same way that the Scouts and all other youth-serving organizations do. Once you discover that the person is a cadet, you simply follow the regulation and arrange for a third person to be present at any meetings (which shouldn't be a problem for an active book club) and make sure you have the required parental permission.
If it were me, I would also advise the responsible commanders that I had met with the cadet and the circumstances.
But surely you can see the reason why it has to be written the way it is: to avoid "willful ignorance."
No actually I think it is a huge overreach of the organization to think that their rules over ride US law. Here's an idea, lets treat the people who are over 18 like adults. If that means we get rid of 18 - 21 year old "cadet" members so be it. An 18 year old does not need to notify or obtain permission of his/her parents to:
Vote; smoke; join the Military; travel; marry; leave the country; get a job; quit a job; etc. As far as I am aware 18 year olds are protected by the US Constitution, which includes among others the right of free assembly. A parent has no legal right to tell an 18 year old who they can or cannot associate with (at least not in the state of CT)
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 01:35:12 PM
No actually I think it is a huge overreach of the organization to think that their rules over ride US law. Here's an idea, lets treat the people who are over 18 like adults. If that means we get rid of 18 - 21 year old "cadet" members so be it. An 18 year old does not need to notify or obtain permission of his/her parents to:
Vote; smoke; join the Military; travel; marry; leave the country; get a job; quit a job; etc. As far as I am aware 18 year olds are protected by the US Constitution, which includes among others the right of free assembly. A parent has no legal right to tell an 18 year old who they can or cannot associate with (at least not in the state of CT)
Mmmm. I love popcorn. Pat, Bob, Dave, you guys want me to pop some extra? this is gonna be like a mini-series premiere.
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 01:35:12 PM
No actually I think it is a huge overreach of the organization to think that their rules over ride US law.
Robert,
I actually agree with you that it would be "huge overreach for any organization to think that their rules over ride US law."
Thank Goodness CAP doesn't.
In fact, for CPP purposes, we think it is so important to NOT overreach state or local laws that we put that in paragraph 1-1 of the draft regulation. Check it out. (http://www.capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/CAPR_5210_Round_2_coordination_1865CE9A135F4.pdf) We wrote
Quote from: Draft 2 of the 52-16Supremacy of Law.[. . .] If ever this regulation comes into conflict with state or federal law, the law shall supercede the regulation.
But I'm not sure that was what you were trying to say.
I think you were trying to say something like "If the Constitution and applicable state and federal laws allow 18 year-olds in Connecticut to hang out without their parents' permission, how can CAP have a rule that would restrict that on rare occasions?" Or something like that.
And the answer is pretty simple, really. Any organization can have rules that are more restrictive than law. And almost all do. And the members agree to abide by them.
For example, I suspect we would agree that normally it would be a "huge overreach for any organization" to tell you how to dress. And yet, countless public and private organizations -- including CAP -- routinely tell their members how to dress, at least while participating with the organization. Fraternal organizations, businesses, schools, youth groups, churches, etc., commonly restrict what you can wear when. And their members / employees / patrons comply because they choose to do so.
QuoteHere's an idea, lets treat the people who are over 18 like adults. If that means we get rid of 18 - 21 year old "cadet" members so be it. An 18 year old does not need to notify or obtain permission of his/her parents to:
Vote; smoke; join the Military; travel; marry; leave the country; get a job; quit a job; etc. As far as I am aware 18 year olds are protected by the US Constitution, which includes among others the right of free assembly. A parent has no legal right to tell an 18 year old who they can or cannot associate with (at least not in the state of CT)
That is the beauty of the Constitution, all right. It protects not only 18 year olds in Connecticut, but minors and adults everywhere in the good old USA. It even protects non-citizens. And it protects the rights of organizations like CAP to set reasonable rules to protect their members.
I am certainly not an expert in Connecticut law, but as near as I can tell everything you have described about it is correct.
It is just not very helpful to the conversation for a couple of reasons. First, CAP has units in several states and commonwealths where the age of majority is not 18. But far more importantly, the age of majority is simply irrelevant is this regard because the concepts of "aulthood" and "cadethood" are unrelated in the first place.
BTW, can a Connecticut 18 year old:
1. Buy or carry a handgun?
2. Buy a drink in a bar?
3. Gamble, even in a Connecticut casino?
4. Be elected to the US House of Representatives or the US Senate?
There are a lot of age-related restrictions in this country, not all of which relate to the local "age of majority." But this is legal trivia unrelated to CPP.
Quote from: Ned on January 20, 2014, 03:51:53 PM
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 01:35:12 PM
No actually I think it is a huge overreach of the organization to think that their rules over ride US law.
Robert,
I actually agree with you that it would be "huge overreach for any organization to think that their rules over ride US law."
Thank Goodness CAP doesn't.
In fact, for CPP purposes, we think it is so important to NOT overreach state or local laws that we put that in paragraph 1-1 of the draft regulation. Check it out. (http://www.capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/CAPR_5210_Round_2_coordination_1865CE9A135F4.pdf) We wrote
Quote from: Draft 2 of the 52-16Supremacy of Law.[. . .] If ever this regulation comes into conflict with state or federal law, the law shall supercede the regulation.
In which case telling cadets or seniors they need permission to interact outside of CAP is illegal
[/quote]
But I'm not sure that was what you were trying to say.
I think you were trying to say something like "If the Constitution and applicable state and federal laws allow 18 year-olds in Connecticut to hang out without their parents' permission, how can CAP have a rule that would restrict that on rare occasions?" Or something like that.
And the answer is pretty simple, really. Any organization can have rules that are more restrictive than law. And almost all do. And the members agree to abide by them.
For example, I suspect we would agree that normally it would be a "huge overreach for any organization" to tell you how to dress. And yet, countless public and private organizations -- including CAP -- routinely tell their members how to dress, at least while participating with the organization. Fraternal organizations, businesses, schools, youth groups, churches, etc., commonly restrict what you can wear when. And their members / employees / patrons comply because they choose to do so.
[/quote]
What you can wear
at their events I am a member of the Shrine, the Masons, a volunteer with the Red Cross and a member of a shul, none of whom think they have the right to tell me who I can interact with outside the purview of their activities. or how to dress.
QuoteHere's an idea, lets treat the people who are over 18 like adults. If that means we get rid of 18 - 21 year old "cadet" members so be it. An 18 year old does not need to notify or obtain permission of his/her parents to:
Vote; smoke; join the Military; travel; marry; leave the country; get a job; quit a job; etc. As far as I am aware 18 year olds are protected by the US Constitution, which includes among others the right of free assembly. A parent has no legal right to tell an 18 year old who they can or cannot associate with (at least not in the state of CT)
[/quote]
That is the beauty of the Constitution, all right. It protects not only 18 year olds in Connecticut, but minors and adults everywhere in the good old USA. It even protects non-citizens. And it protects the rights of organizations like CAP to set reasonable rules to protect their members.
I am certainly not an expert in Connecticut law, but as near as I can tell everything you have described about it is correct.
It is just not very helpful to the conversation for a couple of reasons. First, CAP has units in several states and commonwealths where the age of majority is not 18. But far more importantly, the age of majority is simply irrelevant is this regard because the concepts of "aulthood" and "cadethood" are unrelated in the first place.
[/quote]
BTW, can a Connecticut 18 year old:
1. Buy or carry a handgun?
Yes, under certain supervised conditions (carry, not buy)
2. Buy a drink in a bar?
No as the Federal government used its influence to raise the drinking age to 21 in all states
3. Gamble, even in a Connecticut casino?
No, but not because of the gambling (they can buy lottery tickets), but because alcohol is served on the floor
4. Be elected to the US House of Representatives or the US Senate?
No, as the constitution sets the age to be elected
There are a lot of age-related restrictions in this country, not all of which relate to the local "age of majority." But this is legal trivia unrelated to CPP.
[/quote]
I have no intention of asking anyone outside of a CAP event if they are a member of CAP, in the same way I don't ask people what political party they belong to, what religion, or what sports teams they like. If CAP thinks they have oversight over the membership to such an extent, or that they should, then the great sucking sound you hear will be members exiting.
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 04:03:33 PM
In which case telling cadets or seniors they need permission to interact outside of CAP is illegal.
Are you sure? I like a legal debate as much as the next guy. (Probably more than the next guy, really.) But this isn't even close.
Robert, I understand your position. I really do. It is one held by others in this very thread. And, all things considered, it is not an unreasonable position
.
But it is not the mainstream position. As I've said a couple of times, no national youth-serving organization allows the adult leaders to date the youth they are supposed to be training.
I'll extend the same invitation to you as I have to others -- please point us to an organization that does.
In the meantime, we encourage CAP seniors to lead, mentor, and inspire our cadets. Which is sort of the whole point of being a senior in CP.
You want to meet a bunch of cadets and take them to see "Lone Survivor" on a Saturday afternoon and then discuss small unit leadership and ethics on the battlefield? Great! Just have another senior and parental permission. You want to meet with the cadet commander at Starbucks after the meeting to talk about prospects for flight commander job coming open? Nothing wrong with that (as long as there is a second senior and Mom is OK with it.)
Quote[Referencing organizations that tell you how to dress.] What you can wear at their events I am a member of the Shrine, the Masons, a volunteer with the Red Cross and a member of a shul, none of whom think they have the right to tell me who I can interact with outside the purview of their activities. or how to dress.
I have no reason to think you are incorrect about the Shrine, Masons, ARC, or even your schul. They have every right to set their own rules. Just like we do.
But, if you were a high school teacher or college professor, your boss would absolutely be able to tell you that you cannot date your students, even your adult students.
If you were an FBI agent, you lose your "rights" to hang around with mafioso. Even on your own time. Especially on your own time.
The notion that "CAP can't tell me what to do on my own time" certainly sounds like it
ought to be right. Heck, it sounds ruggedly American, and most people would probably agree with it on a poll.
But like many slogans, it doesn't really make sense if you think about it for a bit. We already have several non-controversial rules about what members can and can't do "on their own time."
- We require cadets to have good grades at school in order to participate as a cadet. School is obviously done "on their own time."
- We terminate members who get convicted of a felony. Conduct that was engaged in "on their own time" and (hopefully) away from CAP activities.
- A senior can't be an officer without a GED, or national commander without a BA. Education that takes place "on their own time."
- If you were to drive to your commander's house at 0300 and start screaming in a loud voice in the street about how screwed up she is, I suspect not even your First Amendment rights would preserve your membership.
We already have reasonable rules in place that govern the conduct of members "on their own time." This is no different.
QuoteI have no intention of asking anyone outside of a CAP event if they are a member of CAP, in the same way I don't ask people what political party they belong to, what religion, or what sports teams they like.
You can relax, because nothing in the draft regulation says you have to something that silly. And if it is any comfort, using the 2010 census data, less than .005% of the roughly 19,000.000 18-21 year olds walking down the street in the US are CAP cadets. You'll be fine.
Quote from: Ned on January 20, 2014, 05:25:44 PM
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 04:03:33 PM
In which case telling cadets or seniors they need permission to interact outside of CAP is illegal.
Are you sure? I like a legal debate as much as the next guy. (Probably more than the next guy, really.) But this isn't even close.
Robert, I understand your position. I really do. It is one held by others in this very thread. And, all things considered, it is not an unreasonable position
.
But it is not the mainstream position. As I've said a couple of times, no national youth-serving organization allows the adult leaders to date the youth they are supposed to be training.
I'll extend the same invitation to you as I have to others -- please point us to an organization that does.
In the meantime, we encourage CAP seniors to lead, mentor, and inspire our cadets. Which is sort of the whole point of being a senior in CP.
You want to meet a bunch of cadets and take them to see "Lone Survivor" on a Saturday afternoon and then discuss small unit leadership and ethics on the battlefield? Great! Just have another senior and parental permission. You want to meet with the cadet commander at Starbucks after the meeting to talk about prospects for flight commander job coming open? Nothing wrong with that (as long as there is a second senior and Mom is OK with it.)
Quote[Referencing organizations that tell you how to dress.] What you can wear at their events I am a member of the Shrine, the Masons, a volunteer with the Red Cross and a member of a shul, none of whom think they have the right to tell me who I can interact with outside the purview of their activities. or how to dress.
I have no reason to think you are incorrect about the Shrine, Masons, ARC, or even your schul. They have every right to set their own rules. Just like we do.
But, if you were a high school teacher or college professor, your boss would absolutely be able to tell you that you cannot date your students, even your adult students.
If you were an FBI agent, you lose your "rights" to hang around with mafioso. Even on your own time. Especially on your own time.
The notion that "CAP can't tell me what to do on my own time" certainly sounds like it ought to be right. Heck, it sounds ruggedly American, and most people would probably agree with it on a poll.
But like many slogans, it doesn't really make sense if you think about it for a bit. We already have several non-controversial rules about what members can and can't do "on their own time."
- We require cadets to have good grades at school in order to participate as a cadet. School is obviously done "on their own time."
- We terminate members who get convicted of a felony. Conduct that was engaged in "on their own time" and (hopefully) away from CAP activities.
- A senior can't be an officer without a GED, or national commander without a BA. Education that takes place "on their own time."
- If you were to drive to your commander's house at 0300 and start screaming in a loud voice in the street about how screwed up she is, I suspect not even your First Amendment rights would preserve your membership.
We already have reasonable rules in place that govern the conduct of members "on their own time." This is no different.
QuoteI have no intention of asking anyone outside of a CAP event if they are a member of CAP, in the same way I don't ask people what political party they belong to, what religion, or what sports teams they like.
You can relax, because nothing in the draft regulation says you have to something that silly. And if it is any comfort, using the 2010 census data, less than .005% of the roughly 19,000.000 18-21 year olds walking down the street in the US are CAP cadets. You'll be fine.
First of all, my example has nothing to do with dating. I am much too old to want to date a teenager. Mine was about interaction. If the hidebound "nanny-state" regulation makers behind this believe that every interaction between two people is a date, perhaps we have the wrong people in charge. My scenario was about 2 people discussing books. Though I can easily extend that to discussing Masonry with a new brother, the sermon with a member of the synagogue. If the regulation hounds believe that the adult leaders are waiting in the wings to pounce on the 18-21 year old cadet, maybe we need to change our screening criteria and otherwise treat adults like adults.
If I run into a cadet in the local coffee shop, I might even have a conversation with them.
Not against the rules.
I'd probably mention it to my CO, just to keep things above board.
One of my cadets works at the local Radio Shack. The reason I won't shop there has nothing to do with him.. :)
Another works as a bagger at the supermarket I frequent. Am I to switch grocery stores? No.
(edited to make clear I don't frequent my supermarket as a bagger.. Darn English tripping me up!)
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 05:58:28 PMThough I can easily extend that to discussing Masonry with a new brother, the sermon with a member of the synagogue. If the regulation hounds believe that the adult leaders are waiting in the wings to pounce on the 18-21 year old cadet, maybe we need to change our screening criteria and otherwise treat adults like adults.
They. Are. Not. Adults. At least in as much as while it still says "cadet" on their ID card.
They want opportunities which are not open to adults, including but not limited to scholarships, activities where
they are not responsible for themselves or others, and training and mentorship. The agreement is that if they want these,
they must accept the position as a "student". At any point where they feel the loss of some options in regards to some interactions
and activities is too onerous, they can choose to become an "adult" in the CAP context.
The flip side is that on the "adult" side, it is our responsibility to protect both the cadet and the organization.
Not all harassment and inappropriate relationships is sexual. It is also about program integrity and proper conduct.
A cadet who has a personal, non-CAP relationship with an adult leader may receive favoritism in the form of
undeserved promotions, activity staff appointment, those same scholarships, etc.
Your analogy about parents of 18-year old children applies, but not in the way you intended.
Certainly, in most cases, an 18 year old is free to disregard his parents' wishes, however he does so
at the risk of also losing his parents' support, both financial and otherwise.
Your other comments about the "nanny state" and how the feds have stepped in and taken rights from those
under 21 indicates you may have a more libertarian view, which is your right, but applying that in a CAP context
doesn't accept the practical reality of the world we exist in, nor the conduct of the vast majority of situations
where those over 18 are still considered "students" or otherwise subordinate.
Quote from: NIN on January 20, 2014, 06:10:32 PM
If I run into a cadet in the local coffee shop, I might even have a conversation with them.
Not against the rules.
I'd probably mention it to my CO, just to keep things above board.
One of my cadets works at the local Radio Shack. The reason I won't shop there has nothing to do with him.. :)
Another works as a bagger at the supermarket I frequent. Am I to switch grocery stores? No.
(edited to make clear I don't frequent my supermarket as a bagger.. Darn English tripping me up!)
All of those scenarios are predicated on the idea you know they are cadets. There are 8 cadets in my squadron, there are 350 cadets in my state. Of the the 350, I can identify approximately 10 of them. So unless the cadet at the coffee shop, radio shack, or supermarket is wearing his uniform, I'm not going to know of his/her affiliation
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 06:16:36 PMAll of those scenarios are predicated on the idea you know they are cadets. There are 8 cadets in my squadron, there are 350 cadets in my state. Of the the 350, I can identify approximately 10 of them. So unless the cadet at the coffee shop, radio shack, or supermarket is wearing his uniform, I'm not going to know of his/her affiliation
And until you do, the only people who will be aware of any issue is the NSA.
However at the point where either of you realizes the other is involved in CAP, then it's time to disengage.
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 06:16:36 PM
All of those scenarios are predicated on the idea you know they are cadets. There are 8 cadets in my squadron, there are 350 cadets in my state. Of the the 350, I can identify approximately 10 of them. So unless the cadet at the coffee shop, radio shack, or supermarket is wearing his uniform, I'm not going to know of his/her affiliation
So? I can't tell you how many times I've interacted with people who were in some special status and I never knew (cop, judge, child sex offender, CIA agent, etc). When it was time to know, and there was a reason, we knew.
Same thing with a cadet. If you have a conversation about a book at a book store with a cadet, and he doesn't know you're in CAP and you don't know he's in CAP, whats the issue? You can't know EVERYTHING.
Years ago a buddy of mine (former cadet, then SM) was going to college. This was in the early days of the CPP.
He said "I gotta check for wing patches when I meet a chick at a party!"
Quote from: Eclipse on January 20, 2014, 06:15:31 PM
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 05:58:28 PMThough I can easily extend that to discussing Masonry with a new brother, the sermon with a member of the synagogue. If the regulation hounds believe that the adult leaders are waiting in the wings to pounce on the 18-21 year old cadet, maybe we need to change our screening criteria and otherwise treat adults like adults.
They. Are. Not. Adults. At least in as much as while it still says "cadet" on their ID card.
They want opportunities which are not open to adults, including but not limited to scholarships, activities where
they are not responsible for themselves or others, and training and mentorship. The agreement is that if they want these,
they must accept the position as a "student". At any point where they feel the loss of some options in regards to some interactions
and activities is too onerous, they can choose to become an "adult" in the CAP context.
The flip side is that on the "adult" side, it is our responsibility to protect both the cadet and the organization.
Not all harassment and inappropriate relationships is sexual. It is also about program integrity and proper conduct.
A cadet who has a personal, non-CAP relationship with an adult leader may receive favoritism in the form of
undeserved promotions, activity staff appointment, those same scholarships, etc.
Your analogy about parents of 18-year old children applies, but not in the way you intended.
Certainly, in most cases, an 18 year old is free to disregard his parents' wishes, however he does so
at the risk of also losing his parents' support, both financial and otherwise.
Your other comments about the "nanny state" and how the feds have stepped in and taken rights from those
under 21 indicates you may have a more libertarian view, which is your right, but applying that in a CAP context
doesn't accept the practical reality of the world we exist in, nor the conduct of the vast majority of situations
where those over 18 are still considered "students" or otherwise subordinate.
Point by point
According to the law they are adults, that cadet card is not for instance going to get them tried as a juvenile if they commit a crime.
Student and adult are not antonyms, I am currently a student, and am old enough to have a child that would be a senior member.
Ned is the one who keep mentioning dating, not I. Cadets may also receive (or be victims of) favoritism due to the fact they are members of the same church, their parents are friends of the commander, or any other flawed reason commanders show favoritism. Since most scholarships and activity appointments are done by committee here I don't know how much an individual's favoritism would influence but it could.
Your analogy about parents of 18-year old children applies, but not in the way you intended.
Certainly, in most cases, an 18 year old is free to disregard his parents' wishes, however he does so
at the risk of also losing his parents' support, both financial and otherwise.Yes that would mean he/she was making an adult decision, not wishing to be dependent on his/her parents. Many young people do that and when the parents say something along the lines of "as long as you live under my roof" they stop living there
Your other comments about the "nanny state" and how the feds have stepped in and taken rights from those
under 21 indicates you may have a more libertarian view ...I didn't say anything about the feds stepping in, I was speaking strictly of the overreach of this organization. If you are going to quote me, then please be accurate
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 06:27:29 PM
According to the law they are adults,
Yes they are, within a somewhat limited lane, and mostly irrelevant to the conversation. 18 year old "adults" also pay 50%+ more for car insurance.
There has to be a number somewhere, but on the whole, society does not consider people under 21 as "adults".
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 06:27:29 PM
Yes that would mean he/she was making an adult decision, not wishing to be dependent on his/her parents. Many young people do that and when the parents say something along the lines of "as long as you live under my roof" they stop living there.
And any 18-year old cadet wishing to make "adult decisions" in a CAP context, is also free to transfer to adult status. Otherwise, the only option is to abide or leave.
Perfectly legal and reasonable.
Were CAP so inclined, it could require all pilots be 35, and all seniors retire at 60. Both reasonable and legal.
If it affected membership or readiness, they might see fit to adjust.
In this case, the number of people with issues will not be statistically significant, and in many cases it may well
weed out members with other issues in regards to decision making. Certainly the general public will view them
as reasonable since they are in line with the practice, as Ned says, of every other similar organization and
youth development group.
Even if your points were valid, there is no advantage to CAP being an outlier in this regard.
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 04:03:33 PM
In which case telling cadets or seniors they need permission to interact outside of CAP is illegal
How can it be "illegal" if membership in CAP is voluntary, and either the cadet or the SM can quit at any time they want if they wish to pursue a cadet-SM relationship?
If you wish to be in CAP, you abide by the rules they set. If you don't want to follow their rules, you can leave the organization.
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 06:27:29 PM
<snip>
Cadets may also receive (or be victims of) favoritism due to the fact they are members of the same church, their parents are friends of the commander, or any other flawed reason commanders show favoritism. Since most scholarships and activity appointments are done by committee here I don't know how much an individual's favoritism would influence but it could.
So could cadets under the age 18.
Either I'm missing your point, or you're not making a really understandable argument here.
This is what the draft actual says:
Professional & Prior Relationships.
1. Relationships Developed Through CAP. Most adult leaders come to know cadets only through their mutual
CAP membership. The purpose of this section (§2-5) is to ensure that the adult leader's and cadet's relationship
remains professional if they interact outside of CAP activities. Adult leaders are not to develop personal, peer-to-peer
relationships with cadets they meet through CAP, but to maintain a degree of professional distance similar to
the social expectations that guide teachers interacting with their students, or military officers with their trainees.
2. Prior & Professional Relationships. Nevertheless, some adult leaders and cadets will enter CAP already
possessing a personal relationship with one another, as in the case of family relatives, neighbors, and acquaintances,
for example. CAP presumes that those prior relationships will continue, so the adult leader's interactions with the
cadet outside of CAP activities in a non-CAP capacity are not bound by this regulation. Similarly, professional
relationships sometimes develop between an adult leader and a cadet, as in the case of physicians, teachers,
coworkers, etc. In those situations, the adult leader's interactions with the cadet outside of CAP activities in a non-
CAP capacity are also not bound by this regulation.
This covers existing outside relationships and new ones which might develop through appropriate circumstances,
including the book club. If the only place you know Cadet Simpson is through CAP, don't invite him for coffee.
If through external circumstances you have an appropriate relationship, Que Sera, Sera.
Where's the issue?
I think the intent of thge draft is to update CPP and cover situations that may occur. Is a18 yo cadet an adult yes by legal standard. Will cadets and SM interact outside CAP yes, though it shouldn't become a trend. Sorry but I'm with Eclipse on this if a 18yo cadet wants the perks of adult stuff in the organization they need to become a SM, until they should be treated as a cadet.
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 20, 2014, 07:19:31 PMif a 18yo cadet wants the perks of adult stuff in the organization they need to become a SM
We have better snacks anyway
Quote from: Eclipse on January 20, 2014, 06:46:08 PM
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 06:27:29 PM
According to the law they are adults,
Yes they are, within a somewhat limited lane, and mostly irrelevant to the conversation. 18 year old "adults" also pay 50%+ more for car insurance.
There has to be a number somewhere, but on the whole, society does not consider people under 21 as "adults".
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 06:27:29 PM
Yes that would mean he/she was making an adult decision, not wishing to be dependent on his/her parents. Many young people do that and when the parents say something along the lines of "as long as you live under my roof" they stop living there.
And any 18-year old cadet wishing to make "adult decisions" in a CAP context, is also free to transfer to adult status. Otherwise, the only option is to abide or leave.
Perfectly legal and reasonable.
Were CAP so inclined, it could require all pilots be 35, and all seniors retire at 60. Both reasonable and legal.
If it affected membership or readiness, they might see fit to adjust.
In this case, the number of people with issues will not be statistically significant, and in many cases it may well
weed out members with other issues in regards to decision making. Certainly the general public will view them
as reasonable since they are in line with the practice, as Ned says, of every other similar organization and
youth development group.
Even if your points were valid, there is no advantage to CAP being an outlier in this regard.
Thank you for condescension, my points are valid, you just don't agree with them. There is a difference. I also doubt that if you polled the general public that you feel comfortable speaking for, that they would think that controlling the actions of legal adults is reasonable, but I am willing to admit I could be wrong.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 20, 2014, 07:01:11 PM
This is what the draft actual says:
Professional & Prior Relationships.
1. Relationships Developed Through CAP. Most adult leaders come to know cadets only through their mutual
CAP membership. The purpose of this section (§2-5) is to ensure that the adult leader's and cadet's relationship
remains professional if they interact outside of CAP activities. Adult leaders are not to develop personal, peer-to-peer
relationships with cadets they meet through CAP, but to maintain a degree of professional distance similar to
the social expectations that guide teachers interacting with their students, or military officers with their trainees.
2. Prior & Professional Relationships. Nevertheless, some adult leaders and cadets will enter CAP already
possessing a personal relationship with one another, as in the case of family relatives, neighbors, and acquaintances,
for example. CAP presumes that those prior relationships will continue, so the adult leader's interactions with the
cadet outside of CAP activities in a non-CAP capacity are not bound by this regulation. Similarly, professional
relationships sometimes develop between an adult leader and a cadet, as in the case of physicians, teachers,
coworkers, etc. In those situations, the adult leader's interactions with the cadet outside of CAP activities in a non-
CAP capacity are also not bound by this regulation.
This covers existing outside relationships and new ones which might develop through appropriate circumstances,
including the book club. If the only place you know Cadet Simpson is through CAP, don't invite him for coffee.
If through external circumstances you have an appropriate relationship, Que Sera, Sera.
Where's the issue?
Actually, because it doesn't cover non-professional relationships (such as the book club, please read what you cited) that develop once both members are in CAP. (An SM and 18+cadet attending the same church, book club, bowling league, etc.)
Quote from: Eclipse on January 20, 2014, 04:08:00 AM
"Non-compliance" = "non-membership", and frankly, if a simple, clear, and appropriate rule like this is too hard to comply with, for whatever reason, we don't need those people in
our organization.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 20, 2014, 03:56:02 AM
You've already got rank and file generally looking the other way in regard to adult cadets and younger senior members dating as it stands now.
Really? Where? Those "rank and file" need to be "ex-members"
Then you're gonna 2b a lot of members who don't believe CAP, Inc. needs to intrude into their lives of ADULTS outside of CAP. Telling adults who they can be around at school, their employment or even in the event they run into each other at another organization without telling their unit commander and/or someone's mommy or daddy is out of line.
The policy can be improved so that people are protected and all of our adult member's activities are not interfered with outside of CAP. The way it's written now isn't it.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 20, 2014, 10:52:41 PMThen you're gonna 2b a lot of members who don't believe CAP, Inc. needs to intrude into their lives of ADULTS outside of CAP. Telling adults who they can be around at school, their employment or even in the event they run into each other at another organization without telling their unit commander and/or someone's mommy or daddy is out of line.
They.
Aren't.
Adults.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 20, 2014, 10:52:41 PM
Then you're gonna 2b a lot of members...
The ones that are actually a problem are going to do the same thing as those when CPP was first introduced, they'll leave. But, if those that stay can't understand and follow the rules, yes, they'll likely be 2b'd. I for one have absolutely no problem with that, because I know of plenty of senior members that raise my spidey-senses who probably won't, and shouldn't, last long.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 20, 2014, 10:52:41 PM
Telling adults who they can be around at school, their employment or even in the event they run into each other at another organization without telling their unit commander and/or someone's mommy or daddy is out of line.
How odd.
Bob just quoted the part that allows for teachers and co-workers to work with cadets at school and the workplace. And it says there is no problem with seniors in those situations. I think the key phrase is that seniors in those situations "are not bound by this regulation."
It seems pretty clear.
QuoteThe policy can be improved so that people are protected and all of our adult member's activities are not interfered with outside of CAP. The way it's written now isn't it.
The whole purpose of the public comment period (and this thread) is for members and stakeholders to suggest how to improve the draft. And I would strongly support your idea of improving it "so that people are protected and all of our adult members' activities are not interfered with outside of CAP."
So, what specific suggestions for improvement do you have?
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 10:38:56 PM
Actually, because it doesn't cover non-professional relationships (such as the book club, please read what you cited) that develop once both members are in CAP. (An SM and 18+cadet attending the same church, book club, bowling league, etc.)
As we have previously explained, it was never the intention of the draft regulation to prohibit accidental or incidental meetings between cadets and seniors outside of CAP that take place in group situations, like bumping into each other at the mall or at a ballgame, and exchanging greetings or perhaps some idle conversation.
Would you be more comfortable if we added some language to paragraph 2.5(c) to make that clearer?
Quote from: Suggested Additional Language for Para 2.5(c) of Draft 52-16There is nothing improper when cadets and adult leaders incidentally meet or gather in an otherwise unrelated group situation such as a college class, church congregation, or in a restaurant or business. Such incidental meetings may occur relatively frequently in some communities, and are not prohibited by this regulation as long as the adult leaders do not develop personal, peer-to-peer relationships with cadets.
Would something like that help?
Excellent solution to a lot of heartburn! :clap: :clap: :clap:
Honestly it's sad that this has to be debated. Common sense should prevail however since that seems to be short these days its something that should be written into the reg. Sorry I know I take the chance of running into cadets when I go about my day to day business, however I do believe the intent of the reg was to cover meetings set up between SM and cadets outside of activities.
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 21, 2014, 01:08:33 AM
Honestly it's sad that this has to be debated. Common sense should prevail however since that seems to be short these days its something that should be written into the reg. Sorry I know I take the chance of running into cadets when I go about my day to day business, however I do believe the intent of the reg was to cover meetings set up between SM and cadets outside of activities.
The question is, will that same intent be interpreted 10 years from now? It may be easy to see what the intent today is, but over time the situation may change and the intent could (not necessarily) be lost.
Although I agree common sense should prevail, but I see a situation in the future where a commander wants to eliminate a member and uses such incidental activities as cause. Probable? No. Possible? Yes.
I like adding such verbiage. It allows the possibility for a SM and cadet to interact outside of CAP for reasons other than CAP. Even the military includes similar verbiage when such situations of church groups, book clubs, etc require officer and NCO interaction which could otherwise be misunderstood as inappropriate.
Quote from: Ned on January 21, 2014, 12:33:03 AM
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2014, 10:38:56 PM
Actually, because it doesn't cover non-professional relationships (such as the book club, please read what you cited) that develop once both members are in CAP. (An SM and 18+cadet attending the same church, book club, bowling league, etc.)
As we have previously explained, it was never the intention of the draft regulation to prohibit accidental or incidental meetings between cadets and seniors outside of CAP that take place in group situations, like bumping into each other at the mall or at a ballgame, and exchanging greetings or perhaps some idle conversation.
Would you be more comfortable if we added some language to paragraph 2.5(c) to make that clearer?
Quote from: Suggested Additional Language for Para 2.5(c) of Draft 52-16There is nothing improper when cadets and adult leaders incidentally meet or gather in an otherwise unrelated group situation such as a college class, church congregation, or in a restaurant or business. Such incidental meetings may occur relatively frequently in some communities, and are not prohibited by this regulation as long as the adult leaders do not develop personal, peer-to-peer relationships with cadets.
Would something like that help?
No because you are speaking of casual one time meetings. One of my currently closest friends is a younger person I met at schul, as a convert, my knowledge of Hebrew is limited. He spent the time to help me learn to be a better reader of the prayers. If he was a CAP cadet I would have issues as I've had to dinner and home for the holidays regardless of what I did or didnt know.
Quote from: Alaric on January 21, 2014, 01:46:21 AM
No [the suggested language will not help] because you are speaking of casual one time meetings. One of my currently closest friends is a younger person I met at schul, as a convert, my knowledge of Hebrew is limited. He spent the time to help me learn to be a better reader of the prayers. If he was a CAP cadet I would have issues as I've had to dinner and home for the holidays regardless of what I did or didn't know.
Well, then we may indeed be too far apart on this one aspect of the draft.
Incidentally meeting a cadet during what you described as a book club situation is a fairly low-risk situation, and the new language would have made it clearer that such a meeting is not inherently improper. But your hypothetical seems to be shifting a bit.
Inviting a cadet over to your house for a private dinner, or to your "home for the holidays" is actually pretty much exactly what draft regulation was written to prevent (at least without parental permission and a third party present.) Mostly because such a situation presents a significantly higher risk for an adverse outcome for the cadet. Which is the whole point of "two-deep leadership" and limiting cadet / adult leader interaction outside of the CP context.
And it's not just me that thinks so, BTW. It is pretty much the unanimous consensus of academia, law enforcement, and other youth-serving organizations.
Really: Take a look at the CDC Guidelines For Preventing Abuse In Youth-Serving Organizations (http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/PreventingChildSexualAbuse-a.pdf#page=14), which represents the best practices of the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Big Brothers, Big Sisters; AYSO, and the National School Board Association. And they recommend two deep leadership and limiting contact between adult leaders and youth members outside the organization. Which should sound familiar.
If your concern remains the "what if I somehow didn't know that this young person I invited 'home for the holidays' was one of the 340 cadets in my state with a population of 3,500,000" hypothetical, I sincerely hope you are comforted by the notion that regulations can be violated unknowingly, and all we ask is that you adhere to the regulation once you learn of the cadet's status.
Is there formal process for "declaring" a relationship / parental permission, etc?
Reasonable minds would allow for a conversation and a memo, etc.
If you didn't know,
and a relationship was established,
and then you found out
then the relationship in a practical sense pre-existed, didn't it?
next door neighbor, family friend (book club member?)
When I was a cadet over 18, my parents didn't care what I did or who I did it with. Just because of silly administrativa, my mom (who lived hours away from me, gone to college) signed a stack of blank permission slips, and I just drew one and filled it the rest of the way out anytime I went to an activity. That was dumb, but we did it anyway because well just being in CAP doesn't exempt you from stupidity (meh).
Doesn't that (do whatever you want) basically constitute 'oral acknowledgement' from the parent?
Quote from: Eclipse on January 21, 2014, 02:58:28 AM
Is there formal process for "declaring" a relationship / parental permission, etc?
Reasonable minds would allow for a conversation and a memo, etc.
Quote
In the
case of relationships that existed prior to the cadet or adult member joining CAP (e.g.: next-door neighbor or family
friend), the cadet's parent may exempt the adult member from this requirement. No special paperwork is needed to
document any of these situations; oral acknowledgements from the parent(s) are sufficient
Quote from: Ned on January 21, 2014, 02:28:34 AM
Quote from: Alaric on January 21, 2014, 01:46:21 AM
No [the suggested language will not help] because you are speaking of casual one time meetings. One of my currently closest friends is a younger person I met at schul, as a convert, my knowledge of Hebrew is limited. He spent the time to help me learn to be a better reader of the prayers. If he was a CAP cadet I would have issues as I've had to dinner and home for the holidays regardless of what I did or didn't know.
Well, then we may indeed be too far apart on this one aspect of the draft.
Incidentally meeting a cadet during what you described as a book club situation is a fairly low-risk situation, and the new language would have made it clearer that such a meeting is not inherently improper. But your hypothetical seems to be shifting a bit.
Inviting a cadet over to your house for a private dinner, or to your "home for the holidays" is actually pretty much exactly what draft regulation was written to prevent (at least without parental permission and a third party present.) Mostly because such a situation presents a significantly higher risk for an adverse outcome for the cadet. Which is the whole point of "two-deep leadership" and limiting cadet / adult leader interaction outside of the CP context.
And it's not just me that thinks so, BTW. It is pretty much the unanimous consensus of academia, law enforcement, and other youth-serving organizations.
Really: Take a look at the CDC Guidelines For Preventing Abuse In Youth-Serving Organizations (http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/PreventingChildSexualAbuse-a.pdf#page=14), which represents the best practices of the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Big Brothers, Big Sisters; AYSO, and the National School Board Association. And they recommend two deep leadership and limiting contact between adult leaders and youth members outside the organization. Which should sound familiar.
If your concern remains the "what if I somehow didn't know that this young person I invited 'home for the holidays' was one of the 340 cadets in my state with a population of 3,500,000" hypothetical, I sincerely hope you are comforted by the notion that regulations can be violated unknowingly, and all we ask is that you adhere to the regulation once you learn of the cadet's status.
I have several concerns but before I get to them, I do find it interesting that this definition is in the very article you cite
Definitions
• Children and youth
- Anyone between the ages of zero and 17 years. In this document,
these terms are used interchangeably.
• Child sexual abuse
- "Child sexual abuse involves any sexual activity with a child where consent is not or cannot
be given. This includes sexual contact that is accomplished by force or threat of force,
regardless of the age of the participants, and all sexual contact between an adult and a
child, regardless of whether there is deception or the child understands the sexual nature
of the activity. Sexual contact between an older and a younger child also can be abusive if
there is a significant disparity in age, development, or size, rendering the younger child
incapable of giving informed consent. The sexually abusive acts may include sexual
penetration, sexual touching, or non-contact sexual acts such as exposure or voyeurism."1
- Legal definitions vary by state, so look up your state guidelines using the Child Welfare
Information Gateway (www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/search/index.cfm (http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/search/index.cfm)).
Funny, they seem to think youth means under 18 hmmm
Second. it concerns me that the only relationship the organization seems to think can be had is a sexual one. 2) The regulations as proposed cover previous relationships and professional relationships that may develop, but not relationships between people who may develop a relationship that has nothing to do with CAP though both happen to be members. 3) my hypothetical hasn't changed, in either case, a relationship has developed based on a common interest (books/religion) where two people meet to discuss and other socialize though neither knows the other is in CAP. In all actuality the latter is probably the safer case as Jewish holidays tend to be large events with lots of people as opposed to two people going to the coffee shop to discuss books. It seems that you need to treat adults like adults and perhaps the best solution is to do away with cadets over the age of 18
I think were the common sense starts breaking down is when we start making comparisons between the CAP Senior Member/Cadet relationship and the Teacher/Student relationship, which seems to be the foundation for rules applying for cadets that are legal adults.
In some circumstances this is a valid comparison. For example, certain senior member staff officer and leadership positions within the cadet program are obviously teachers in many ways and cadets, even adult cadets, are their students.
However, is the senior member in a composite squadron that has nothing at all to do with cadets except for occasional encounters on missions or in the hallway "teaching" that adult cadet? Not in any direct sense.
But, for the sake of argument lets say that I accept that all senior members are equivalent to teachers over all cadets. So, what about other equally valid teacher/student relationships that can exist between other senior members? If one senior member is teaching another ground team tasks there is certainly nothing prohibiting them from meeting outside of CAP without supervision. Can a Wing ES Training Officer not meet outside of CAP with someone that may be participating in the training programs that they have helped organize and lead?
Quote from: Alaric on January 21, 2014, 03:53:23 AM
it concerns me that the only relationship the organization seems to think can be had is a sexual one.
Nonsense. Have you even read the draft?
Sexual abuse of cadets has always been prohibited. The new material in the draft talks about "boundary violations," which are violations of our cadet protection standards of practice. The great majority of which have little to do with sexual abuse.
The CPP covers the full range of cadet protection issues, including both physical and emotional abuse. We spend a lot of time talking about things like hazing and physical abuse.
CPP is just the application of ORM principles to cadet protection issues. It is all about identifying and managing risk. And sadly, sexual abuse is a non-negligible risk. So, just like for hazing and physical abuse, we engineer safeguards to minimize the occurrence and the effects.
Things like favoritism and inappropriate fraternization create genuine CP issues even without sexual abuse.
Quote2) The regulations as proposed cover previous relationships and professional relationships that may develop, but not relationships between people who may develop a relationship that has nothing to do with CAP though both happen to be members.
Well, both kinds of relationships are "covered" in the sense that the regulation permits the former, but attempts to prevent inappropriate peer-to-peer relationships between adult leaders and cadets as part of the latter.
QuoteIt seems that you need to treat adults like adults and perhaps the best solution is to do away with cadets over the age of 18
Since we already treat adults as adults, and minors as minors already (and cadets as cadets and seniors as seniors), perhaps you would like to clearly state the problem you are trying solve with your "solution."
Quote from: Alaric on January 21, 2014, 03:53:23 AM
I have several concerns but before I get to them, I do find it interesting that this definition is in the very article you cite
Definitions
• Children and youth
- Anyone between the ages of zero and 17 years. In this document,
these terms are used interchangeably.
• Child sexual abuse
- "Child sexual abuse involves any sexual activity with a child where consent is not or cannot
be given. This includes sexual contact that is accomplished by force or threat of force,
regardless of the age of the participants, and all sexual contact between an adult and a
child, regardless of whether there is deception or the child understands the sexual nature
of the activity. Sexual contact between an older and a younger child also can be abusive if
there is a significant disparity in age, development, or size, rendering the younger child
incapable of giving informed consent. The sexually abusive acts may include sexual
penetration, sexual touching, or non-contact sexual acts such as exposure or voyeurism."1
- Legal definitions vary by state, so look up your state guidelines using the Child Welfare
Information Gateway (www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/search/index.cfm (http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/search/index.cfm)).
Funny, they seem to think youth means under 18 hmmm
You know, you just might be on to something here...
The Cadet Protection Policy exists to protect all cadets, but it does so in a way that treats all cadets as minors. This is not the case, and that distinction is responsible for most of the angst I'm seeing in this thread.
So, given the unique nature of our cadet program, my outlandish suggestion would be to reinvent the CPP as a Youth Protection Policy for cadets under the age of 18, with another set of rules established to deal specifically with the 18-21 year old cadet cohort.
Thoughts?
Quote from: RiverAux on January 21, 2014, 04:14:32 AM
I think were the common sense starts breaking down is when we start making comparisons between the CAP Senior Member/Cadet relationship and the Teacher/Student relationship
Not surprisingly, that's where I think common sense actually starts coming together.
Quote
However, is the senior member in a composite squadron that has nothing at all to do with cadets except for occasional encounters on missions or in the hallway "teaching" that adult cadet? Not in any direct sense.
I think I agree as far as that goes. But even the school district bus drivers, attendance clerks, and janitors are forbidden to have inappropriate relationships with the students they are supposed to be serving.
There are a lot of reasons, but most of them essentially boil down to the inherent power differential between senior member officers and cadets. Especially in a paramilitary organization like ours, where every senior outranks every cadet and the cadets literally swear to "obey my officers." (Interestingly, seniors only swear to "abide by the decisions of those in authority.")
The existence of a significant power differential raises the risk of abusive relationships, particularly in youth-serving organizations. It is essentially inherent. Just ask the Scouts. Or the Catholic church. Both organizations have done immeasurable good in this world, but have also had issues with leaders abusing their youth. As a result, they have updated and modified their CPP-equivalent policies, just as we are in the process of doing.
Another issue is that roles and relationships change fairly frequently in CAP. If we had a rule to the effect of 18+ cadets can date seniors, but only if they are in another unit or not in their immediate change of command, it will become very complicated very quickly in CAP Land where duty assignments can change fairly often. ("Hey, I was the assistant logistics officer last week, but now I am the DCC." Or "I may be just the group PD officer, but I am also your TAC officer at encampment this year.") There is an advantage to a bright line rule in this regard.
QuoteSo, what about other equally valid teacher/student relationships that can exist between other senior members? If one senior member is teaching another ground team tasks there is certainly nothing prohibiting them from meeting outside of CAP without supervision. Can a Wing ES Training Officer not meet outside of CAP with someone that may be participating in the training programs that they have helped organize and lead?
As I noted above, cadet / senior relationships have an inherent power differential. Senior - senior relationships, much less so. Heck, there are a fair number of seniors right on this very board who do not appear to recognize much authority even in senior corporate officers. And realistically, the average cadet is a little over 14; the average senior is something like 48. There are some obvious maturational differences between the two groups, and we should general lean toward protecting our cadets.
I can't say I have ever heard of a senior-on-senior hazing incident. Mostly because seniors simply wouldn't put up with it. But cadets are vulnerable to both hazing and abusive relationships in ways that seniors are not.
But if it helps, I have worked on some anti-nepotism and fraternization guidelines for seniors as well. But they deserve their own thread. ;)
Quote from: NC Hokie on January 21, 2014, 05:03:16 AM
So, given the unique nature of our cadet program, my outlandish suggestion would be to reinvent the CPP as a Youth Protection Policy for cadets under the age of 18, with another set of rules established to deal specifically with the 18-21 year old cadet cohort.
Thoughts?
Major, what sort of rule differences would you suggest?
What would you change about the policies on physical abuse for the 18-21 crowd?
Similarly, what would you change about our hazing policies that would apply to the same age group?
Be as specific as you can.
Well, there's no Senior Protection Policy ;)
So the 18-21 crowd should fall into our group, where able, with the local laws of Majority Age defining the legal adult.
Quote from: Ned on January 21, 2014, 05:10:49 AM
Quote from: NC Hokie on January 21, 2014, 05:03:16 AM
So, given the unique nature of our cadet program, my outlandish suggestion would be to reinvent the CPP as a Youth Protection Policy for cadets under the age of 18, with another set of rules established to deal specifically with the 18-21 year old cadet cohort.
Thoughts?
Major, what sort of rule differences would you suggest?
What would you change about the policies on physical abuse for the 18-21 crowd?
Similarly, what would you change about our hazing policies that would apply to the same age group?
Be as specific as you can.
Forgive me, but I think you're being a little disingenuous here. I've yet to see any angst over hazing and physical abuse, but, since you asked, I wouldn't change any of those policies.
I would give strong consideration to the following changes for majority (18-21 year old) cadets:
- Resist micromanaging the relationships between majority cadets and senior members. Punish abuse of authority or inappropriate currying of favor, but stay out of mundane things like studying, going to the movies, or sharing a dorm room. I'll admit that dating relationships could create problems, but that's what local leadership is for, right?
- Remove the requirement for parental permission to participate in CAP activities. An adult is an adult, even if they are a cadet.
- Prohibit romantic relationships with minor cadets, including those that started when both cadets were minors. This addresses a legal oversight in the current regulations that should have been dealt with long ago.
I'm sure that others could add to this list, but those are the issues that have bothered me the most about the draft CPP.
I'll close with this...
We all agree that cadets ought to be protected, but our efforts to do so must recognize the fact that we have two distinct classes of cadets that require different types of protection. We need to be careful to address each class in an appropriate manner that ensures the protection of ALL of our members.
The issue with the removal of parent permission could get sticky when activities cross state lines and age laws differ.
Of course, that could also be covered during the whole "you got your Wing CC to sign this" phase.
I submit to you does anybody who does not understand that the cadet / senior member relationship is similar to the student / teacher relationship either has not spent a lot of time in cadet programs, where does not understand the dynamic.
There are many state laws that define varying degrees of criminal sexual conduct. one of those degrees involves what was referred to as " inherent authority " I believe, which speaks to the balance of power between leaders and subordinates.
I wouldn't have much available to me in the way of case law, but I think if you went back and looked at previous situations where adult members of an organization were charged with criminal sexual conduct against their youth charges, you'd see that pretty frequently that aspect of the relationship, the power dynamic, is cited in the charges.
Part of the new CPP is designed to keep people from just " looking the other way " when others are acting inappropriately.
Many many years ago, a squadron commander that I knew was carrying on a relationship with a 16 year old cadet in his unit. Many people knew about it, and everybody sort of looked the other way. In retrospect, it was completely creepy and wrong, even though the young lady's parents we're supposedly okay with it. Later on, this commander got cold feet, and decided that maybe this wasn't the best course of action ( you think? ) and ended things. In the aftermath, mom and dad complained to the Wing Commander, specifically cited the law regarding the student / teacher power dynamic. The Wing Commander did not have a whole lot of choice there. there were at least a half dozen people who knew about this situation. Technically they should all have said something to the commander because of the very least, there were boundary violation-style warning signs far in advance of anybody knowing what was going on.
The other thing to think about: we brief the heck out of cadet protection all throughout a cadet's time in CAP, including when they turn 18. If you want to play adult games you going to have to pay adult prices. You don't like the fact that as a cadet you can't date your senior member friend, tough. Adult life is full of hard choices..
Major Hess, thank you for responding in a thoughtful manner.
Quote from: NC Hokie on January 21, 2014, 06:16:12 AM
I would give strong consideration to the following changes for majority (18-21 year old) cadets:
- Resist micromanaging the relationships between majority cadets and senior members. Punish abuse of authority or inappropriate currying of favor, but stay out of mundane things like studying, going to the movies, or sharing a dorm room. I'll admit that dating relationships could create problems, but that's what local leadership is for, right?
One way to think of it is that we are giving the local leadership the tools they need to manage the issue at the local level.
Without some rules, it is inevitable that at least some local leadership may feel there is nothing they can or should do about inappropriate relationships (romantic or otherwise). When we first started engaging the old National Board on this issue, some of them directly told us they saw no problems with 25 year old seniors sleeping with 16 year old cadets, which was one of the examples we were using at the time based on actual incidents. Undoubtedly varying regional traditions in the US about things like the "age of consent" were in play, but after a full discussion the "bright line rule" about seniors not dating cadets was adopted by a large majority of our leadership. If local leadership alone was sufficient to protect our cadets, we would not need a CPP in the first place. Local leadership is critical, but not enough by itself to prevent the harms we all seek to prevent. Leaders need a program and a framework of rules for support.
And even when cadets and seniors engage in otherwise mundane activities like the ones you mentioned (sharing a door room, movies, studying) it significantly raises the risk of an problematic (in the sense of causing problems at the unit) or even an abusive relationship.
Quote- Remove the requirement for parental permission to participate in CAP activities. An adult is an adult, even if they are a cadet.
From a legal perspective considered alone, there are some issues. But there is more to it than legal issues.
(As a young legal officer, I was always amused by our F31, which requires parents to certify that Cadet Bagodonuts "is my minor child or ward." Which plainly isn't true for the majority of 18 year old cadets. We should not make Mom lie under penalty of perjury. (BTW, I just tell Mom to line through that sentence if it does not apply.) And a parent of an 18 year old cannot sign releases that purport to affect the 18 year old's interests in any event. So I have periodically re-engaged NHQ legal and CP types. So far, the only change is that the applicant also has to sign a release.)
But we need to remember that this simply isn't an issue with over 90% of our cadets to start with. And for the rest, supporting and involving the parents of even a 19 year old cadet is not a bad thing. It is almost always a good thing.
So, while I think it does far more good than harm, this is not the particular CP hill I want to die on.
Quote- Prohibit romantic relationships with minor cadets, including those that started when both cadets were minors. This addresses a legal oversight in the current regulations that should have been dealt with long ago.
I certainly agree that it romantic relationships between cadets of any age can be problematic. Probably every CP senior has seen the negative effects such things can cause a unit. We've had a few examples discussed here on CT, and over at CadetStuff.
And I also agree that the problem is more difficult as the cadets age through the program. Which is why we make cadets take CPP training at age 18 (and allow it at age 17) -- to help educated them about the problem and the negative effects it can have.
The logistics of prohibiting dating only for the 18+ crowd is a little daunting. (And similar to what we would have to do if we allowed seniors to date cadets).
Part of the problem is that many of us have trouble identifying exactly when a relationship "begins." (But we probably all know exactly when it ends. ;) )
Part of it is that some people might not be very forthcoming about declaring when they are in (and out of) a relationship.
I don't want to be the guy at the unit who is in charge of identifying and tracking relationships at the unit to make sure then end at midnight of the older partner's birthday.
Quote
We all agree that cadets ought to be protected, but our efforts to do so must recognize the fact that we have two distinct classes of cadets that require different types of protection. We need to be careful to address each class in an appropriate manner that ensures the protection of ALL of our members.
I'm still not sure why we might think that we have "two distinct classes" of cadets that require protection. I would argue that none of our cadets deserve less protection than the others. To me, at least, here is nothing magic about an 18th birthday that suggests to me that someone needs less protection at 0001 than he / she needed at 2359.
Which is why high schools and colleges treat their 18 year old students pretty much exactly the way they threat their 17 year old students.
A bit off topic, but I was thinking about this with the talk regarding cadet hood and adulthood. Why did NHQ remove pregnancy as a reason to terminate a cadet's membership back in the early 2000s?
I don't know, off the bat, seen as punitive?
???
Flyer
Several reasons - it probably never should have been a reason to kick an active cadet out of the program in any event.
First was the practical difficulties in enforcing the rule - if the cadet doesn't cooperate, it can be hard to prove that a cadet is (or was) pregnant. Similarly, it was for all practical purposes impossible to prove that a male cadet had contributed to a given pregnancy.
Second, we probably should not have a policy that appears to encourage or reward early termination of pregnancies.
Third, it makes little sense to punish a cadet and remove them from the program at a time when they might most benefit from our structure and education.
Fourth, the appeared in some instances to punish victims of crimes.
But there are plenty of threads on the topic.
Duplicated post...
Flyer
Quote from: Ned on January 21, 2014, 08:12:52 PM
Several reasons - it probably never should have been a reason to kick an active cadet out of the program in any event.
First was the practical difficulties in enforcing the rule - if the cadet doesn't cooperate, it can be hard to prove that a cadet is (or was) pregnant. Similarly, it was for all practical purposes impossible to prove that a male cadet had contributed to a given pregnancy.
Second, we probably should not have a policy that appears to encourage or reward early termination of pregnancies.
Third, it makes little sense to punish a cadet and remove them from the program at a time when they might most benefit from our structure and education.
Fourth, the appeared in some instances to punish victims of crimes.
But there are plenty of threads on the topic.
That is right. Now I remember all of those points. Thanks for jogging my memory
Quote from: Ned on January 21, 2014, 05:04:52 AM
As I noted above, cadet / senior relationships have an inherent power differential. Senior - senior relationships, much less so. Heck, there are a fair number of seniors right on this very board who do not appear to recognize much authority even in senior corporate officers.
There is very little, if any difference between the power any senior member holds over another and that of any senior member over a cadet. I as a random senior member have no authority to tell anyone in CAP, whether cadet or senior, what to do, and I think just about everyone knows it.
I doubt there are any 18-21 year old cadets who don't understand the inherent lack of any real authority found in senior member status, let alone in senior member grades. I would buy into the concept that under-18 cadets might perceive senior members having more authority than they actually do, but I think people forgot just how very focused young adults are about their new-found rights.
However, I think any real "abuse of authority" violation is more than adequately handled by other regulations and isn't really relevant to the conversation here.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 21, 2014, 08:47:03 PM
There is very little, if any difference between the power any senior member holds over another and that of any senior member over a cadet. I as a random senior member have no authority to tell anyone in CAP, whether cadet or senior, what to do, and I think just about everyone knows it.
Don't sell yourself short. You have a great deal of authority over every single cadet.
And they know it. Because that is the way we train them. And because they swear to "obey my officers." (Note that the oath does
not say "obey only CP rated officers in my direct chain of command.")
As just one example, if you came across a hazardous situation where a cadet's health or safety was endangered you have not only the authority, but the
duty to take immediate action to correct it. Including the authority to order a cadet to do (or not to do) something.
Same thing if you should come across a hazing situation.
And this is true even if some 19 year old cadet tries to assert some sort of "new found rights" and thinks that you are just some unimportant senior member. Because your authority over cadets does not stem from the mistaken opinion of some random cadet, but from our regulations and doctrine.
That's the authority over cadets we give CAP every CAP officer. Because we are literally charged with caring for some of our nation's most valuble assets -- our cadets.
Okay, if you want to bring up a technical phrase in the cadet oath that mentions officers....
In regards to "obey my officers." I feel compelled to go Clintonesque and note that the use of the word "my" certainly implies the officers within their actual chain of command and wouldn't apply to EVERY CAP officer. Perhaps I could be charitable and apply it to other officers within their unit, even if not within their chain of command.
And to go even more Clintonesque, not all CAP senior members are officers. Using your theory, CAP cadets are not required to obey commands from CAP NCOs or "SMWOG" [I forget whether flight officers are technically officers under CAP regs and don't feel like looking it up]
I was going to go there, too - OTOH, there is an "O" in NCO, and the Senior Member startout .. that's about the only gray area. The rest are too far into it.
Quote from: Ned on January 21, 2014, 09:14:52 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on January 21, 2014, 08:47:03 PM
There is very little, if any difference between the power any senior member holds over another and that of any senior member over a cadet. I as a random senior member have no authority to tell anyone in CAP, whether cadet or senior, what to do, and I think just about everyone knows it.
Don't sell yourself short. You have a great deal of authority over every single cadet.
And they know it. Because that is the way we train them. And because they swear to "obey my officers." (Note that the oath does not say "obey only CP rated officers in my direct chain of command.")
As just one example, if you came across a hazardous situation where a cadet's health or safety was endangered you have not only the authority, but the duty to take immediate action to correct it. Including the authority to order a cadet to do (or not to do) something.
Same thing if you should come across a hazing situation.
And this is true even if some 19 year old cadet tries to assert some sort of "new found rights" and thinks that you are just some unimportant senior member. Because your authority over cadets does not stem from the mistaken opinion of some random cadet, but from our regulations and doctrine.
That's the authority over cadets we give CAP every CAP officer. Because we are literally charged with caring for some of our nation's most valuble assets -- our cadets.
We could just do away with the Cadet program and then we wouldn't need to worry about it >:D /jk
Keep the cadets, close CAPTalk, problem solved eh?
Overall, I think the confusing part is that it seems CAP just has a lot standards based on age but none of which makes a unified picture. I understand federal laws, insurance companies, and other corporates can dictate a lot. But there just seems to be a lot of variation in age restrictions (which I understand there are variations in age restrictions for things like age of consent, age of majority, drinking age, smoking age, etc)
For example:
QuoteCadets 18 years of age and older can be qualified to serve as mission pilots
Quote from: CAPR 77-1Members under 21 years of age, but at least 18 years of age, may be permitted to operate general purpose CAP owned vehicles (sedans, station wagons, 7-passenger vans or pickup trucks). They may not carry passengers or tow trailers. They must also have written or electronic approval from their unit commander to do so.
So apparently you cannot drive a CAP vehicle with people, but you can fly an airplane with people in it. Or with CPPT, you can fly an airplane and be a PIC but still cannot have a meeting outside of CAP. Which is funny when you think about it really. An 18 year old cadet can have ultimate responsibility of an airplane and its occupants, but cannot have a study group with another college student that happens to be a senior member.
QuoteA qualified senior member must directly supervise cadets less than 18 years of age.
This implies that a senior member is not required to directly supervise cadets over the age of 18 years. But not the case with new CPPT.
QuoteCadets 18 years of age and older can be qualified to serve as ground team leaders
But you can still assign senior members as GTMs that still have authority over them.
Or even the we trust you to lead a ground team at the age of 18 (Senior Member) but unfortunately you cannot drive the vehicle.
Quote from: CAPR 77-1Cadet use of golf type utility vehicles will be restricted to cadets 18 years of age or older with verification of a valid driver's license and then only with approval of the national/ region/wing commander (as appropriate for the level of activity being performed) or commander's designated representative.
So 18 year old cadets can drive golf carts and other vehicles without parental permission, but still need parental permission to attend activities and have meetings.
QuoteCadets under 18 shall not be exposed to conditions in which their health is jeopardized by exposure to decomposing bodies and hazardous materials.
Again, this implies that we can expose cadets over 18 years old to such possibilities (although I am sure that is not exactly the intent). But reading this strictly, we can possibly exposed cadets over the age of 18 years to decomposing bodies, but still again need parental permission to meet outside CAP.
***I understand each and every one of these situations and the reasons why. I really do, so there is no need to go through each individually and explain why. However, looking at things from the surface, it just seems like there is no real consensus (especially the 18 year old mission pilot) on how we treat 18-21 year members. Overall, I think it creates an odd and sometimes quite confusing picture.