New CPP Codified - Updated 52-10

[Spaceman3750]

Caught this buried in an eservices news item about an index update: http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_010_2014_10_CAABD5624E9C2.pdf

I don't think I've seen this come up since the draft.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Quite the lead time on this. Effective 1 Oct 2014.

[Alaric]

Quite the lead time on this. Effective 1 Oct 2014.

Just in time to affect the NER Conference

[a2capt]

"Don't say we didn't tell you".

[NIN]

Quite the lead time on this. Effective 1 Oct 2014.

Just in time to affect the NER Conference

http://www.ner.cap.gov/conference/

NER Conference 2012?

[Alaric]

Quite the lead time on this. Effective 1 Oct 2014.

Just in time to affect the NER Conference

http://www.ner.cap.gov/conference/

NER Conference 2012?

Website is not up yet the 2014 NER Conference will be a joint conference with CT Wing taking place the weekend of October 17th at the Sheraton at Bradley Airport

[Eclipse]

Nothing in there is not common sense, and no one with a clue will have to make drastic life changes to comply.
I don't think any activity I've been involved in, including the encampment, would be affected in the least.

The only thing I can see which will cause some minor logistical issues is this:

Page 6
b. Co-Ed Supervision. The staff of adult leaders supervising an overnight activity must
include adults of the same gender(s) as the participating cadets. Co-ed cadet activities may not
proceed without a co-ed adult staff.

However there are plenty of units who have female cadets, but no female Senior Members.
This is reasonable and in line with similar organizations.  It is >not< however, "discrimination"
if a female cadet can't participate in a bivouac because no female leaders are interested or available.

As long as the POC of the activity makes honest effort to find someone, it simply is what it is,
and the very valid question of why someone from that cadet's family can't participate is the response
to anyone wanting to make hay.  You don't cancel the activity because of it.

As long as people are operating in good faith, and planning things in advance, this should not be a
very common problem.

[lordmonar]

Nothing in there is not common sense, and no one with a clue will have to make drastic life changes to comply.
I don't think any activity I've been involved in, including the encampment, would be affected in the least.

The only thing I can see which will cause some minor logistical issues is this:

Page 6
b. Co-Ed Supervision. The staff of adult leaders supervising an overnight activity must
include adults of the same gender(s) as the participating cadets. Co-ed cadet activities may not
proceed without a co-ed adult staff.

However there are plenty of units who have female cadets, but no female Senior Members.
This is reasonable and in line with similar organizations.  It is >not< however, "discrimination"
if a female cadet can't participate in a bivouac because no female leaders are interested or available.

As long as the POC of the activity makes honest effort to find someone, it simply is what it is,
and the very valid question of why someone from that cadet's family can't participate is the response
to anyone wanting to make hay.  You don't cancel the activity because of it.

As long as people are operating in good faith, and planning things in advance, this should not be a
very common problem.

Ehhmmmm  no.

If you have an activity.....and then exclude female cadets because you cannot find the right type of adult leadership.......then you MUST CANCEL the activity......you CANNOT......I SAY AGAIN......you CANNOT exclude female cadets because you can't find a female senior member.

Good faith or not.......if you have an activity......you cannot discriminate based on sex.

[Eclipse]

NHQ already says you can and you must.

We have no control over who joins or goes to an activity.  We don't cancel an activity
for 20 people because of one person.

That is not discrimination, that is practical reality.

[Storm Chaser]

Eclipse is right. As long as you plan ahead and make an honest effort to find a female senior member, you shouldn't have to cancel an activity if you can't. If this is a common issue, this may serve as an incentive for female family members to join. This is one of the reasons CAP has the Cadet Sponsor membership.

[FW]

^Yep!  I would encourage squadrons to recruit as many CSM's to join up as possible.  Mom's need to help out at the squadron too.  It's important to support your kids, even as drivers and chaparones. It will be even be more important after 1 October.

[Garibaldi]

I've always exercised part of this policy dating back to 2001. Female cadets feel a little more at ease if there is a female senior around on an overnight activity. Day trips I don't mind, but overnight there are things that can happen that males just are not equipped to deal with. I had a hard time explaining my POV to some seniors who didn't see the need, and that the regs stated two SMs, so pbbt. I never had to cancel an activity or tell a female cadet she couldn't come because of inadequate female SM support, but I had female cadets back out on their own because of it. They missed out on opportunities because it wasn't communicated to them that there were going to be female SMs at whatever activity we were going to, just we didn't have one going from our unit.

Plus, there is nothing like a motherly female SM to keep the young boys away from their area.

[lordmonar]

NHQ already says you can and you must.

We have no control over who joins or goes to an activity.  We don't cancel an activity
for 20 people because of one person.

That is not discrimination, that is practical reality.

CAP regulations say we follow Title VI......title VI says you cannot discriminate based on sex.
Sure it is not intentional discrimination......sure you tried to make sure everyone is included......but at the end of the day the ACLU is not going to care about what you tied to do....they are only going to care that you did not let Cadet Jane Doe go to encampment.

[Ned]

FWIW, I spoke with General Carr on this issue, and the regulation does not suggest or permit some cadets to be denied a CAP activity simply because of their gender.  Indeed, discrimination based on gender alone would be a violation of other CAP policies and regulation.

Our policy on the effective date of the revised regulation, is that all overnight coed activities have coed supervision.  This means that units that do not have senior staff (to include CSMs) of both genders have nearly six months to recruit and train the necessary senior members.

CP officers treat each other and the cadets in a professional manner, while leading, challenging, and mentoring our cadets.  I'm having trouble imagining how the adjective "motherly" could ever be applied to a CP officer.

[coudano]

and the very valid question of why someone from that cadet's family can't participate is the response
to anyone wanting to make hay.

Because someone from the cadet's family could be a teen molesting pervert.

CSM's are at least fingerprinted and CPPT trained.  non-CSM "mom" or "gramma" or "older sister" or "aunt jenny" is not.

[JeffDG]

Our policy on the effective date of the revised regulation, is that all overnight coed activities have coed supervision.  This means that units that do not have senior staff (to include CSMs) of both genders have nearly six months to recruit and train the necessary senior members.

Discussions to the contrary, that's not what the regulation says.  And it doesn't resolve the conflict of regulations when you have an unforseen circumstance where you have co-ed cadets, and only one gender of supervision.  Which do you follow?  The non-discrimination that says you cannot send the opposite gender cadets away, or the CPPT one that says you cannot have the opposite gender cadets there.

[Eclipse]

and the very valid question of why someone from that cadet's family can't participate is the response
to anyone wanting to make hay.

Because someone from the cadet's family could be a teen molesting pervert.

CSM's are at least fingerprinted and CPPT trained.  non-CSM "mom" or "gramma" or "older sister" or "aunt jenny" is not.

No one is suggesting non-members be allowed to chaperon.  Obviously.
However a reasonable person cannot join a volunteer organization and start saying "you must" if Mom, Sis, Aunt Sally,
or whomever can't be bothered.

[Eclipse]

Our policy on the effective date of the revised regulation, is that all overnight coed activities have coed supervision.  This means that units that do not have senior staff (to include CSMs) of both genders have nearly six months to recruit and train the necessary senior members.

Discussions to the contrary, that's not what the regulation says.  And it doesn't resolve the conflict of regulations when you have an unforseen circumstance where you have co-ed cadets, and only one gender of supervision.  Which do you follow?  The non-discrimination that says you cannot send the opposite gender cadets away, or the CPPT one that says you cannot have the opposite gender cadets there.

This is a situation which cannot be ignored, and the answer cannot be "it won't happen much", or
"we should just recruit more members" (we're not doing that today, this isn't going to get them moving).

Up until now, it was a non-issue because there was no gender bias in supervision.  Now there is.

In an organization which has no control of its membership, no control over the distribution of its membership,
and no control over the level of member participation, wishing won't fix this.  What's CAP's female adult
demo?  25%?  Maybe?  Off the top of my head I know of 5 or 6 units in my wing with female cadets
and no female leadership.

Where's the line?  Spend 2 months planning an activity and then Cadet Jane's mom gets a work
trip and can't go so the whole thing is off?  Who pays for the site deposits, etc?

Cadet Jane's mom gets ill, called away, whatever mid-activity and takes Cadet Jane home, but
Cadet Cindy and Cadet Tracey are still there.  Everyone goes home?

We let people hang in the straps or don't respond to DR requests because there are no female GTLs in the wing?

These situations are no more "discrimination" then not being able to take a wheelchair on a military
o-ride, or if the berthing of an encampment is on the third floor and they have no elevators.

"Unable to accommodate" does not equal "discrimination".

If you want to talk about discrimination, how "inclusive" to females are cadets from an otherwise, or used-to-be
active unit who suddenly see their much-beloved bivouacs and museum trips routinely canceled because
their 1-2 female members have no chaperons?

[Luis R. Ramos]

From Ned:

...and the regulation does not suggest or permit some cadets to be denied a CAP activity simply because of their gender.  Indeed, discrimination based on gender alone would be a violation of other CAP policies and regulation.

Our policy on the effective date of the revised regulation, is that all overnight coed activities have coed supervision.  This means that units that do not have senior staff (to include CSMs) of both genders have nearly six months to recruit and train the necessary senior members.

And if you cannot find coed supervision, then you have to suspend or cancel an activity. That to me is "suggesting or permit[ing] some cadets to be denied a CAP activity simply because of their gender." Being male.

[Eclipse]

From Ned:

...and the regulation does not suggest or permit some cadets to be denied a CAP activity simply because of their gender.  Indeed, discrimination based on gender alone would be a violation of other CAP policies and regulation.

Our policy on the effective date of the revised regulation, is that all overnight coed activities have coed supervision.  This means that units that do not have senior staff (to include CSMs) of both genders have nearly six months to recruit and train the necessary senior members.

And if you cannot find coed supervision, then you have to suspend or cancel an activity. That to me is "suggesting or permit[ing] some cadets to be denied a CAP activity simply because of their gender." Being male.

Between Scylla and Charybdis