Caught this buried in an eservices news item about an index update: http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_010_2014_10_CAABD5624E9C2.pdf (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.
Quite the lead time on this. Effective 1 Oct 2014.
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on April 17, 2014, 05:31:51 PM
Quite the lead time on this. Effective 1 Oct 2014.
Just in time to affect the NER Conference
"Don't say we didn't tell you".
Quote from: Alaric on April 17, 2014, 05:47:13 PM
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on April 17, 2014, 05:31:51 PM
Quite the lead time on this. Effective 1 Oct 2014.
Just in time to affect the NER Conference
http://www.ner.cap.gov/conference/ (http://www.ner.cap.gov/conference/)
NER Conference 2012?
Quote from: NIN on April 17, 2014, 07:09:23 PM
Quote from: Alaric on April 17, 2014, 05:47:13 PM
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on April 17, 2014, 05:31:51 PM
Quite the lead time on this. Effective 1 Oct 2014.
Just in time to affect the NER Conference
http://www.ner.cap.gov/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
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.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2014, 07:48:41 PM
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.
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.
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.
^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.
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.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2014, 08:18:22 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2014, 07:48:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Ned on April 17, 2014, 09:10:28 PM
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.
Quote from: coudano on April 17, 2014, 09:14:15 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2014, 07:48:41 PM
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.
Quote from: JeffDG on April 17, 2014, 09:16:03 PM
Quote from: Ned on April 17, 2014, 09:10:28 PM
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?
QuoteFrom 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.
Quote from: flyer333555 on April 17, 2014, 09:38:43 PM
QuoteFrom 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
Quote from: flyer333555 on April 17, 2014, 09:38:43 PM
QuoteFrom 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.
Only if you offered the program to just the girls. Yes, it sucks. But that is the way it is. If you offer a program to the boys you have to either include the girls or you have to offer separate but equal programs to the girls.
If you can't.....you can't offer it to anyone.
Poor Enid, the 65 year old orientation pilot at encampment. She was trapped against her will, couldn't go anywhere, leave base or go to the BX because Tammy, the female TAC officer, was in town on a soda run.
Is the female SM required for the entire activity, or just the overnight portion?
So if a unit has 20 male cadets and 1 female cadet, they should cancel overnight activities every time a female senior member is not available, cancels at the last minute or has to leave mid activity because of an unforeseen issue? That seems like reverse discrimination to me.
^ Reverse of what?
Meaning, we would be discriminating against the male cadets.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for same gender supervision during overnight activities. I would just have a hard time canceling an activity because the one female senior member is no longer available.
well even more amusing,
suppose you have two moms one is an active member and the other is a csm
they are moms of male cadets
can't do an overnight activity with those two as the senior members, with male cadets present
--even if the only two males there are THEIR boys
muah
A lot of units have >only< female leaders, especially
cadet units, or are led by male parents of female cadets.
The ramifications of this were not properly considered, or this was
inserted by someone unfamiliar with the practical realities of unit operations and
demographics.
Worse, this won't be a weekly issue, it will be an issue with the very activities
which are hardest to plan and which we are constantly trying to get members
more involved in.
Putting policies in place which encourage negative peer pressure towards female
cadet membership defeat their own purposes.
Quote from: Ned on April 17, 2014, 09:10:28 PM
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.
Nice to see that the ramifications of reinstating this requirement were discussed at the highest echelon... But why was this even an issue?
I can only assume there were reasons why we (the Civil Air Patrol) eliminated discriminating based on the sex of leadership and participants years ago. Why are we reinstating this policy?
Personally, I find such a policy distateful and fraught with the potential for mismanagement...
"Mrs. Parent, we'd like your to join our squadron. We may or may not have a job or responsibilities you're interested in, but you're a woman and that's what we need so someone's daughter can stay overnight at activities."
"Cadet Isagirl, since you're over 18 and we can't find any Senior Member females to supervise at the upcoming overnight activity, so we want you to consider transferring to Senior Member status so we don't have to cancel the activity."
"Well, as the Membership Committee, we have some reservations about accepting Ms. Smith as a new member, but she's a woman and we have a quota now, so we may have to overlook them in order to have overnight activities that all of our cadets can participate in."
Saying, "just recruit some moms as Cadet Sponsor Members," is a non-solution to a problem that we've just created for ourselves. Even if we did so, this doesn't make cadets any more "protected" or necessarily add capacity to pursuing the Civil Air Patrol's chartered missions.
Or how about this one,
mySquadron has maybe 6 male senior members who will go do cadet activities
and 1 female senior member (the wife of one of the males)
So the 6 dudes split up the squadron activities, each one doing 4 a year.
Current/old rules, these guys alone can do 12 activities a year.
A decent op tempo, and not too taxing on anybody...
On the new rules, the female has to do 12 activities a year.
While the male senior members can now cut back to 2 a year.
cool for the dudes... i'll bet we burn her out in six months...
I mean sure, "go recruit more female senior members"
but uh,
well, easier said than done.
if we had the foggiest clue how to recruit senior members in the first place, these sorts of things would probably not be issues at all.
This will be interesting for NESA... There wasn't a single female SM staff member last year at AGSAR. There was one student, but I would call that a fluke. Does husker cancel that school next year? Do we have to convince a logistics or transportation female staff member to come sleep in the woods with us?
I was very impressed with the coordination process leading up to this. How the co-ed rule got added separately from that process is a disappointment.
I would really like to see addressed a scenario of what we do when the one female adult leader signed up for an overnight at a reserved camp site for which we have 10 male cadets and 4 female cadets signed up has to cancel.
Cancelling the activity as now appears required will result in lost opportunities for cadets of both genders, not to mention loss of any deposits.
This also seems to place extra pressure on female senior members as well.
I guess after all those years of hearing it, someone figured they might as well write it up.. because it wasn't true previously.
Quote from: a2capt on April 18, 2014, 01:23:05 AM
I guess after all those years of hearing it, someone figured they might as well write it up.. because it wasn't true previously.
I recall being told, when I joined over a decade ago, that this had been a written policy 15+ years prior... But you're right in that it certainly hasn't been required for a long time.
Is the following only for during CAP events? Two friends who are also CAP cadets can no longer meet alone? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. They should really have added during official activities as they did for the adult mentoring conversations to clarify.
f. Semi-Private Discussions. Adult leaders who need to mentor or counsel cadets individually during official activities should do so in the presence of a third person when reasonably possible. Alternatively, one-on-one meetings are permitted if conducted in a semi-open setting (e.g. office door kept ajar, or conversing away from, but in sight of, the group, or other circumstances). Cadets are prohibited from meeting one-on-one in a closed environment; an adult leader must be present or other arrangements must be made to minimize the risk of misconduct, such as keeping the door fully open, for example.
Does this mean I can't give my godchildren gifts if they join CAP? Before everyone jumps on the "previous relationship" bandwagon, my point is the policy says what is says as opposed to what they may have meant.
i. Favoritism & Gifts. Favoritism is to be avoided as much as is reasonably possible. Adult leaders are expected to make a good faith effort to avoid favoritism and to support each individual cadet in their sphere of responsibility with an appropriate amount of individualized attention. Further, adult leaders will not bestow gifts upon cadets. Adult leaders wishing to provide financial support to an individual cadet will do so via a donation through the unit and in a manner that keeps the donor's identity unknown to the cadet.
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 18, 2014, 01:37:52 AM
Quote from: a2capt on April 18, 2014, 01:23:05 AM
I guess after all those years of hearing it, someone figured they might as well write it up.. because it wasn't true previously.
I recall being told, when I joined over a decade ago, that this had been a written policy 15+ years prior... But you're right in that it certainly hasn't been required for a long time.
It was never a national-level policy going back at least 25 years that I can remember (taught it as a Level I/CPPT instructor in the early 1990s). I will stipulate that my memory is getting a lot worse these days :)
No, that gender specific policy only ever reared its ugly head when someone at a lower level (squadrons, usually) decided that their particular level of discomfort with not having an adult female along overrode good sense and the regulation as written.
If I had a buck for the number of times I had to squash that kind of "Well, the regulation says..." around this particular issue, I'd have had a LOT of dollars. I'd whip out the regulation and say "Can you please show me where the regulation says that?" and then they'd go off on a tangent about what they felt was appropriate behavior and how they can't face parents and blah, blah, blah...
Have I run co-ed activities where there were no female seniors? Yep. As far as I know, nobody had any trouble with it. Heck, I think we took 2 whole vanloads of cadets to Washington DC one year with 4 male seniors and at least 2 female cadets. "Here you go, cadets, your barracks is over here.. Our barracks is over there. If there is a problem, I'm billeted in this room, come beat on the door if you need to. If we need you folks, we'll come beat on your doors.. Mmmkay?" (pre-cell phone, that should tell you how long ago this was!)
Would it be my
personal preference to have a female senior member on an over night when we have female cadets? Oh, heck yeah. BUT, I'm not going to cancel a small wing's summer encampment because the only female senior we could get could only be at encampment for 3 or 4 days out of 8,
especially when the regulation didn't say I had to.
Quote from: Alaric on April 18, 2014, 01:41:16 AM
i. Favoritism & Gifts. Favoritism is to be avoided as much as is reasonably possible. Adult leaders are expected to make a good faith effort to avoid favoritism and to support each individual cadet in their sphere of responsibility with an appropriate amount of individualized attention. Further, adult leaders will not bestow gifts upon cadets. Adult leaders wishing to provide financial support to an individual cadet will do so via a donation through the unit and in a manner that keeps the donor's identity unknown to the cadet.
Emphasizing the bold statement, does this mean that recognizing a cadet for reaching a certain milestone (Mitchell, etc.), or for doing outstanding work, by giving them a challenge coin is forbidden after 1 October?
I understand the intent of the section as written, but if all cadets have the opportunity to someday receive a challenge coin to further recognize their hard work and achievement, this segment of the regulation seems too much.
I guess ordering these from Vanguard will be unnecessary soon.
http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15148 (http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15148)
http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15096 (http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15096)
Quote from: Maj Daniel Sauerwein on April 18, 2014, 05:07:10 AM
Quote from: Alaric on April 18, 2014, 01:41:16 AM
i. Favoritism & Gifts. Favoritism is to be avoided as much as is reasonably possible. Adult leaders are expected to make a good faith effort to avoid favoritism and to support each individual cadet in their sphere of responsibility with an appropriate amount of individualized attention. Further, adult leaders will not bestow gifts upon cadets. Adult leaders wishing to provide financial support to an individual cadet will do so via a donation through the unit and in a manner that keeps the donor's identity unknown to the cadet.
Emphasizing the bold statement, does this mean that recognizing a cadet for reaching a certain milestone (Mitchell, etc.), or for doing outstanding work, by giving them a challenge coin is forbidden after 1 October?
I understand the intent of the section as written, but if all cadets have the opportunity to someday receive a challenge coin to further recognize their hard work and achievement, this segment of the regulation seems too much.
I guess ordering these from Vanguard will be unnecessary soon.
http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15148 (http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15148)
http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15096 (http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15096)
You missed the next sentence. Adult Leaders can't bestow gifts.......but the unit can.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 17, 2014, 10:01:17 PM
Only if you offered the program to just the girls. Yes, it sucks. But that is the way it is. If you offer a program to the boys you have to either include the girls or you have to offer separate but equal programs to the girls.
If you can't.....you can't offer it to anyone.
"Sorry guys, I know we've be planning this activity for six months now and everybody was excited to go, but Lt. Lady broke her ankle last night so she can't go. That means we have no female Senior Members available, so we have to cancel. Sorry."
(All the cadets in the squadron stare at Cadet Isagirl.)
Yeah, this won't make any problems at all. Nope.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 18, 2014, 05:12:16 AM
Quote from: Maj Daniel Sauerwein on April 18, 2014, 05:07:10 AM
Quote from: Alaric on April 18, 2014, 01:41:16 AM
i. Favoritism & Gifts. Favoritism is to be avoided as much as is reasonably possible. Adult leaders are expected to make a good faith effort to avoid favoritism and to support each individual cadet in their sphere of responsibility with an appropriate amount of individualized attention. Further, adult leaders will not bestow gifts upon cadets. Adult leaders wishing to provide financial support to an individual cadet will do so via a donation through the unit and in a manner that keeps the donor's identity unknown to the cadet.
Emphasizing the bold statement, does this mean that recognizing a cadet for reaching a certain milestone (Mitchell, etc.), or for doing outstanding work, by giving them a challenge coin is forbidden after 1 October?
I understand the intent of the section as written, but if all cadets have the opportunity to someday receive a challenge coin to further recognize their hard work and achievement, this segment of the regulation seems too much.
I guess ordering these from Vanguard will be unnecessary soon.
http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15148 (http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15148)
http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15096 (http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15096)
You missed the next sentence. Adult Leaders can't bestow gifts.......but the unit can.
Good point. I guess I was looking at it from the standpoint of me, as Commander, or my DCC, bestowing a coin on a cadet, as our way of recognizing them as their leaders, but I guess it could still, even it that circumstance, be from the unit, as we represent the unit.
Quote from: Panache on April 18, 2014, 05:14:38 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 17, 2014, 10:01:17 PM
Only if you offered the program to just the girls. Yes, it sucks. But that is the way it is. If you offer a program to the boys you have to either include the girls or you have to offer separate but equal programs to the girls.
If you can't.....you can't offer it to anyone.
"Sorry guys, I know we've be planning this activity for six months now and everybody was excited to go, but Lt. Lady broke her ankle last night so she can't go. That means we have no female Senior Members available, so we have to cancel. Sorry."
(All the cadets in the squadron stare at Cadet Isagirl.)
Yeah, this won't make any problems at all. Nope.
Yep.....your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to recruit, train and equip your squadron to be able to accomplish all assigned missions.
Basic bottom line............we can't exclude the girls and we can't do a co-ed overnight with out co-ed supervision.
- But we can't recruit female SM
- But our one female SM can't make it.
- But we planned this for 2 whole weeks!
- But that's not fair!
Sorry....these are all leadership hurdles that need to be planned for and overcome.
So.....every commander and CDC right now, today, should be looking at their operations and their manning. They got six months to get enough people to cover these requirements.......or they need to start re planing their events.
No one said it was going to be easy.
Makes me really wonder .. how did we get this far?
Quote from: lordmonar on April 18, 2014, 05:25:14 AM
Yep.....your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to recruit, train and equip your squadron to be able to accomplish all assigned missions.
Basic bottom line............we can't exclude the girls and we can't do a co-ed overnight with out co-ed supervision.
- But we can't recruit female SM
- But our one female SM can't make it.
- But we planned this for 2 whole weeks!
- But that's not fair!
Sorry....these are all leadership hurdles that need to be planned for and overcome.
So.....every commander and CDC right now, today, should be looking at their operations and their manning. They got six months to get enough people to cover these requirements.......or they need to start re planing their events.
No one said it was going to be easy.
Your can-do attitude isn't inappropriate. Kudos for maintaining a positive attitude.
My frustration here is two-fold.
A) This situation is a self-generated problem, not a solution that makes cadets safer by any measure presented, and
B) Even if we have a 50/50 ratio of male & female seniors available, that does not mean the notional situations discussed here are any less possible. Not every overnight activity has 4+ senior members (at least 2of each sex) available to ensure coverage in case of a drop-out... And now we are LESS able to pursue our mission in the name of a requirement that apparently started out as a rumor generated and sustained out of ignorance, bias, and the notion the somehow two adults are less capable for ensuring the safety and well-being of cadets of the opposite sex.
All this, despite the training in CPPT, RST, TLC, et cetera that we provide.
I will continue to pursue recruiting high-quality senior members and cadets of both sexes, and I truly hope I never find myself in a situation where I don't have the optimal coverage at an activity. But I think the add-on if this requirement is a poor decision for the reasons stated.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 18, 2014, 05:25:14 AM
Quote from: Panache on April 18, 2014, 05:14:38 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 17, 2014, 10:01:17 PM
Only if you offered the program to just the girls. Yes, it sucks. But that is the way it is. If you offer a program to the boys you have to either include the girls or you have to offer separate but equal programs to the girls.
If you can't.....you can't offer it to anyone.
"Sorry guys, I know we've be planning this activity for six months now and everybody was excited to go, but Lt. Lady broke her ankle last night so she can't go. That means we have no female Senior Members available, so we have to cancel. Sorry."
(All the cadets in the squadron stare at Cadet Isagirl.)
Yeah, this won't make any problems at all. Nope.
Basic bottom line............we can't exclude the girls and we can't do a co-ed overnight with out co-ed supervision.
- But we can't recruit female SM
- But our one female SM can't make it.
- But we planned this for 2 whole weeks!
- But that's not fair!
Sorry....these are all leadership hurdles that need to be planned for and overcome.
Meanwhile, we loose Cadet Isagirl when she drops out of the program because she's feeling guilty over the fact that the squadron's long-awaited trip to the State Fair was cancelled.
Quote from: Panache on April 18, 2014, 07:13:53 AM
Meanwhile, we loose Cadet Isagirl when she drops out of the program because she's feeling guilty over the fact that the squadron's long-awaited trip to the State Fair was cancelled.
Why would anyone blame her? If they are it is because unit leadership is not managing their program very well.
These are all excuses that just will not fly.
I know it is a pain in the buttocks......but Title VI is clear and if we start busting Title VI the USAF would be forced to drop us like a lead balloon!
The ACLU is not going to care about how hard it is for you to recruit female senior members (in fact they probably will just add that to the class action suit). The press is not going to care about how difficult it is to get anyone to volunteer for CAP. All they are going to care about is how a Federally Funded Youth Organization told Cadet Isagirl she could not go to the state fair.
Does Title VI require co-ed leadership?
Oops....I kept saying Title VI....I meant Title XI
Quote from: WikiTitle IX is a portion of the Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. sections 1681 through 1688, co-authored and introduced by Senator Birch Bayh; it was renamed the Patsy Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act in 2002, after its House co-author and sponsor. It states (in part) that:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IXAnd a recent case makes me think that they are not kidding.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendy-n-powell/athletic-boosters-beware-_b_5060862.html
Quote from: lordmonar on April 18, 2014, 08:55:28 AM
Oops....I kept saying Title VI....I meant Title XI
And what you really meant was Title IX
:)
Yep, because what we really need to do more of is keep making things harder for CCs and CDCs by uncoordinated regulation changes.
I'm not sure my squadron would ever have a valid excuse for not having a female adult leader present on an overnight activity. But we're large and we're diverse, maybe significantly larger and more diverse than the average squadron. I could see us running into an issue where we don't have a male adult leader available.
I think a good start toward a re-write would be:
b. Co-Ed Supervision. The staff of adult leaders supervising an overnight activity must should include adults of the same gender(s) as the participating cadets. Co-ed cadet activities may not proceed without a co-ed adult staff unless the organizing unit commander or designee provides a written CPP violation mitigation plan to cadets, adult leaders, and parents involved in the overnight activity. A copy of these procedures must be provided to the next echelon in the chain of command.
We could take the [or designee] out and specify that this can't be delegated below CC or CDC if we really want to elevate the level of supervision / responsibility.
The plan could involve parent contacts, curfew hours, reporting procedures, or other best practices.
This would make it much more desirable to simply have the right mix of gender among the adult leaders while allowing those squadrons without the right mix of available (it's a scheduling issue, not just a recruiting issue) genders to continue overnight activities yet mitigate the obvious risk. It also gives the next echelon an opportunity to say hey, Capt Sally Senior from Someother Squadron needs to get her GTM3 signed off and is willing to camp out with you.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 18, 2014, 01:01:44 AM
This will be interesting for NESA... There wasn't a single female SM staff member last year at AGSAR. There was one student, but I would call that a fluke. Does husker cancel that school next year? Do we have to convince a logistics or transportation female staff member to come sleep in the woods with us?
I wonder as far as the technicallity of the issue... "there is
A female member present at the activity".....she may be physically located near where the female cadet is, but she is
AT the activity"
I wonder how often this one will get pencil whipped....to save activities
CAP must put a lot of faith in their male senior members (note sarcasm) .... "yup we are pretty sure you are on the up an up....but we dont trust you entirely with them teenage girls around; so haven a woman around 'll keep you in line"
Anecdotally I have seen more instances of female teachers overstepping their bounds with male students than the other way around. Or (though I am sure media sensationalized) male organizational leaders who abuse thier positions with male youth members......
I guess we can assume that there was concrete evidence of male senior to female cadet issues that we cant trust two senior memebrs to follow the rules; why else would they revive this rule after years of it being a non-issue
mk
I forsee the formation of far more Senior and Cadet Squadrons as smaller composite squadrons cannot meet the requirements of the new regulations for various events.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 18, 2014, 08:01:06 AM
Quote from: Panache on April 18, 2014, 07:13:53 AM
Meanwhile, we loose Cadet Isagirl when she drops out of the program because she's feeling guilty over the fact that the squadron's long-awaited trip to the State Fair was cancelled.
Why would anyone blame her? If they are it is because unit leadership is not managing their program very well.
A: You are pretending you don't know how adolescents work to try and make your argument, for that matter how humans work.
A group of 12-15 year old boys aren't going to engage in a reasoned Title IX discussion when their beloved annual
bivouac or trip to Wright Patt is canceled, they will simply blame Cadet Isagirl.
Cadet Isagirl is likely already having acceptance issues being the only or one of a few females in the unit,
this doesn't make that situation better. Nor does it encourage an otherwise capable Unit CC from
recruiting female cadets. Human beings work that way, and as we are constantly reminded, this
is a volunteer situation.
B: The only "management failure" here is at the National level in enacting unreasonable, unnecessary rules that
handcuff operations. A unit CC can spend a year recruiting and never get a female senior member interested in CAP, or could get
7 female pilots from the local Earhart Club at the FBO, and none are interested in supervising
cadets they are not personally involved with, or have no flexibility for overnight activities. How often
do we hear male pilots say the same thing?
How do you "manage" a personnel situation which does not exist? Poach females from neighboring units?
Force female parents and relatives to join along with their children? Again, NHQ is trying to make us work like
the USAF, forgetting we don't actually have the ability to force anyone to do anything.
C: This presupposes, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, that a male leader cannot adequately
care for a female member, which I'm sure will sit well with the hundreds if not thousands of single fathers
of female cadets we have involved in this organization.
It also sets up the very real situation in which a male unit CC cannot supervise his own child on an overnight
activity, since the gender bias in supervision doesn't accommodate even
that situation as an option.
As I write this I can think of at least one unit in my wing in this very situation - dad is the commander and
he has one son and one daughter in the program. Both kids are top-tier cadets, active in
all three missions and will likely have a shared Spaatz ceremony - but dad can't supervise his daughter?
Frankly, if this does come back to a Title IX challenge, so be it. It won't be out of the Unit CC's pocket
since he's just following the rules. If NHQ is going to continue to put these kinds of situations in place,
then maybe it's only writing big checks that will get their attention.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 18, 2014, 08:01:06 AM
Quote from: Panache on April 18, 2014, 07:13:53 AM
Meanwhile, we loose Cadet Isagirl when she drops out of the program because she's feeling guilty over the fact that the squadron's long-awaited trip to the State Fair was cancelled.
Why would anyone blame her? If they are it is because unit leadership is not managing their program very well.
Kids are kids. "Okay, Cadets, it's nobody's fault." That'll convince them.
Quote from: NIN on April 18, 2014, 10:45:50 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 18, 2014, 08:55:28 AM
Oops....I kept saying Title VI....I meant Title XI
And what you really meant was Title IX
:)
[darn] Lysdexia! :)
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2014, 12:32:11 PM
C: This presupposes, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, that a male leader cannot adequately
care for a female member, which I'm sure will sit well with the hundreds if not thousands of single fathers
of female cadets we have involved in this organization.
FTFY
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2014, 12:32:11 PM
It also sets up the very real situation in which a male unit CC cannot supervise his own child on an overnight
activity, since the gender bias in supervision doesn't accommodate even that situation as an option.
As I write this I can think of at least one unit in my wing in this very situation - dad is the commander and
he has one son and one daughter in the program. Both kids are top-tier cadets, active in
all three missions and will likely have a shared Spaatz ceremony - but dad can't supervise his daughter?
This, IMHO is the greatest absurdity of all. It's SO nice to know that NHQ doubts my ability to adequately supervise my own child during an overnight activity. I guess supervising all of her overnight activities since she was born isn't enough to prove my ability in this area.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2014, 12:32:11 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 18, 2014, 08:01:06 AM
Quote from: Panache on April 18, 2014, 07:13:53 AM
Meanwhile, we loose Cadet Isagirl when she drops out of the program because she's feeling guilty over the fact that the squadron's long-awaited trip to the State Fair was cancelled.
Why would anyone blame her? If they are it is because unit leadership is not managing their program very well.
A: You are pretending you don't know how adolescents work to try and make your argument, for that matter how humans work.
A group of 12-15 year old boys aren't going to engage in a reasoned Title IX discussion when their beloved annual
bivouac or trip to Wright Patt is canceled, they will simply blame Cadet Isagirl.
Cadet Isagirl is likely already having acceptance issues being the only or one of a few females in the unit,
this doesn't make that situation better. Nor does it encourage an otherwise capable Unit CC from
recruiting female cadets. Human beings work that way, and as we are constantly reminded, this
is a volunteer situation.
B: The only "management failure" here is at the National level in enacting unreasonable, unnecessary rules that
handcuff operations. A unit CC can spend a year recruiting and never get a female senior member interested in CAP, or could get
7 female pilots from the local Earhart Club at the FBO, and none are interested in supervising
cadets they are not personally involved with, or have no flexibility for overnight activities. How often
do we hear male pilots say the same thing?
How do you "manage" a personnel situation which does not exist? Poach females from neighboring units?
Force female parents and relatives to join along with their children? Again, NHQ is trying to make us work like
the USAF, forgetting we don't actually have the ability to force anyone to do anything.
C: This presupposes, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, that a male leader cannot adequately
care for a female member, which I'm sure will sit well with the hundreds if not thousands of single fathers
of female cadets we have involved in this organization.
It also sets up the very real situation in which a male unit CC cannot supervise his own child on an overnight
activity, since the gender bias in supervision doesn't accommodate even that situation as an option.
As I write this I can think of at least one unit in my wing in this very situation - dad is the commander and
he has one son and one daughter in the program. Both kids are top-tier cadets, active in
all three missions and will likely have a shared Spaatz ceremony - but dad can't supervise his daughter?
Frankly, if this does come back to a Title IX challenge, so be it. It won't be out of the Unit CC's pocket
since he's just following the rules. If NHQ is going to continue to put these kinds of situations in place,
then maybe it's only writing big checks that will get their attention.
All true.....
So how does that help your commanders tomorrow?
In stead of spinning "but, what if..." stories......why not be thinking of various stratagies where we can help our peers and subordinate officers over come these leadership obsticles.
Haven't recruited a female in over a year.........time to call wing and ask for help....because come October you need to have enough females to cover you.....or you are going to have to curtail overnight activities.
That's the bottom line.
As for any problems with the regulation.......well there is the first option of up-channeling any changes you think need to be made to NHQ. Option b is to look for loop holes or option c....as you suggest just ignore it and do what you want.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2014, 09:49:03 PM
Quote from: flyer333555 on April 17, 2014, 09:38:43 PM
QuoteFrom 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
Indeed. I agree with Eclipse all the way through the thread.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 18, 2014, 05:12:16 AM
Quote from: Maj Daniel Sauerwein on April 18, 2014, 05:07:10 AM
Quote from: Alaric on April 18, 2014, 01:41:16 AM
i. Favoritism & Gifts. Favoritism is to be avoided as much as is reasonably possible. Adult leaders are expected to make a good faith effort to avoid favoritism and to support each individual cadet in their sphere of responsibility with an appropriate amount of individualized attention. Further, adult leaders will not bestow gifts upon cadets. Adult leaders wishing to provide financial support to an individual cadet will do so via a donation through the unit and in a manner that keeps the donor's identity unknown to the cadet.
Emphasizing the bold statement, does this mean that recognizing a cadet for reaching a certain milestone (Mitchell, etc.), or for doing outstanding work, by giving them a challenge coin is forbidden after 1 October?
I understand the intent of the section as written, but if all cadets have the opportunity to someday receive a challenge coin to further recognize their hard work and achievement, this segment of the regulation seems too much.
I guess ordering these from Vanguard will be unnecessary soon.
http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15148 (http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15148)
http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15096 (http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15096)
You missed the next sentence. Adult Leaders can't bestow gifts.......but the unit can.
I just gave a cadet a small gift from Vanguard that cost me $2.50 in recognition of his help and dedication. He was happy with the small gesture. In no way did this appear as favoritism. It seems a bit unreasonable that now this is going to be prohibited come October with the new regulation.
Quote from: Brit_in_CAP on April 18, 2014, 02:05:29 PM
Indeed. I agree with Eclipse all the way through the thread.
The apocalypse is indeed upon us! :)
Quote from: lordmonar on April 18, 2014, 01:56:33 PM
Haven't recruited a female in over a year.........time to call wing and ask for help....because come October you need to have enough females to cover you.....or you are going to have to curtail overnight activities.
Seriously? Wing's job is not recruiting for a squadron. What, exactly, do you think they can do in a situation where you, as a CC, have been unable
to recruit female members? Start making phone calls for you? Run your recruiting booths? I know, forcibly transfer female seniors between units
to appear more "diverse"? As a reminder, it's not just having female members, they have to be interested in overnights supervising cadets.
As it stands we have trouble with that
now, with no gender bias filter in place.
The membership is shrinking, the demographic has always been male-centric, and there is zero initiative or pressure from NHQ to change that
beyond some meaningless rhetoric about "inclusion" and "diversity". This could literally stifle those initiatives because commanders will
have in the back of their mind that "female cadets = hassle". Again, people participate in CAP mostly because they enjoy it on one level or another.
Anything that raises the hassle factor, especially with zero gain for anyone, will decrease initiative to be involved, and has the potential to
raise the attrition rate.
As mentioned, there apparently was zero thought given to how this may affect several high-profile NCSAs, wing conferences, not to mention
other activities where cadets are not the focus, but CAP is always indicating they should participate. Now it's not just extra seniors for supervision,
it's extra seniors with a gender bias.
This is someone's last-minute, poorly considered, notion of a "good idea", nothing more, nothing less.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 18, 2014, 01:56:33 PM
..as you suggest just ignore it and do what you want.
I suggested absolutely nothing of the kind.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 18, 2014, 02:06:09 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 18, 2014, 05:12:16 AM
Quote from: Maj Daniel Sauerwein on April 18, 2014, 05:07:10 AM
Quote from: Alaric on April 18, 2014, 01:41:16 AM
i. Favoritism & Gifts. Favoritism is to be avoided as much as is reasonably possible. Adult leaders are expected to make a good faith effort to avoid favoritism and to support each individual cadet in their sphere of responsibility with an appropriate amount of individualized attention. Further, adult leaders will not bestow gifts upon cadets. Adult leaders wishing to provide financial support to an individual cadet will do so via a donation through the unit and in a manner that keeps the donor's identity unknown to the cadet.
Emphasizing the bold statement, does this mean that recognizing a cadet for reaching a certain milestone (Mitchell, etc.), or for doing outstanding work, by giving them a challenge coin is forbidden after 1 October?
I understand the intent of the section as written, but if all cadets have the opportunity to someday receive a challenge coin to further recognize their hard work and achievement, this segment of the regulation seems too much.
I guess ordering these from Vanguard will be unnecessary soon.
http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15148 (http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15148)
http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15096 (http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15096)
You missed the next sentence. Adult Leaders can't bestow gifts.......but the unit can.
I just gave a cadet a small gift from Vanguard that cost me $2.50 in recognition of his help and dedication. He was happy with the small gesture. In no way did this appear as favoritism. It seems a bit unreasonable that now this is going to be prohibited come October with the new regulation.
Guess that means I, as commander, can't give out challenge coins either...
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2014, 03:08:50 PM
This is someone's last-minute, poorly considered, notion of a "good idea", nothing more, nothing less.
I have to agree. What problem does this solve?
I'm still trying to figure out (after I take the required for my position for some reason, advanced CPT) how I e-mail a cadet to discuss a complaint with out massively violating 123-2's confidentiality requirements.
Requiring an adult leader to remain anonymous regarding financial support is creepy. I think donations should be made public so there is no chance for weird stuff.
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on April 18, 2014, 03:19:34 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2014, 03:08:50 PM
This is someone's last-minute, poorly considered, notion of a "good idea", nothing more, nothing less.
I have to agree. What problem does this solve?
I'm still trying to figure out (after I take the required for my position for some reason, advanced CPT) how I e-mail a cadet to discuss a complaint with out massively violating 123-2's confidentiality requirements.
Copy your CDC.
^ He's an IG. CDC doesn't get to know, nor anyone else not involved.
The suggestion is probably to /cc the cadet's parents and the next echelon IG.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2014, 04:19:41 PM
^ He's an IG. CDC doesn't get to know, nor anyone else not involved.
The suggestion is probably to /cc the cadet's parents and the next echelon IG.
Yup, forgot about that.
The lawyers are influencing the Fraidy Cats.. and the whole thing is getting more hands off and coddling every minute.
Go after those who create the problems, and stop penalizing the organization as a whole. Like someone making a blanket rule saying "No use of Google Glass at any CAP activity" (because it's always recording, why would you have it on if it were not recording?)
Both statements are bogus, spat out based on lack of understanding what they're talking about. When there are plenty of items that can do the behavior they're trying to 'stop', and even the ones we use everyday can be surreptitiously modified via software to do just that. Go after the behavior.
But swatting like a fly, and citing "since recording people requires consent.. " "you can't use that", yet we've got PAOs running all over the place with cameras.. recording people.
At least this release says "you can't record people in the shower", which is a no brainer. Too bad we've got to resort to actually saying stuff like that.
We could always end the cadet program, wouldn't need to worry about it then >:D Of course we would need to change the US Code
Quote from: a2capt on April 18, 2014, 04:30:00 PM
The lawyers are influencing the Fraidy Cats.. and the whole thing is getting more hands off and coddling every minute.
Go after those who create the problems, and stop penalizing the organization as a whole. Like someone making a blanket rule saying "No use of Google Glass at any CAP activity" (because it's always recording, why would you have it on if it were not recording?)
Both statements are bogus, spat out based on lack of understanding what they're talking about. When there are plenty of items that can do the behavior they're trying to 'stop', and even the ones we use everyday can be surreptitiously modified via software to do just that. Go after the behavior.
But swatting like a fly, and citing "since recording people requires consent.. " "you can't use that", yet we've got PAOs running all over the place with cameras.. recording people.
This:
(http://blogs-images.forbes.com/ericmack/files/2014/04/9082188786_42a10102b5_b.jpg)
BAD!This:
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/04/120223-GALAXY-NOTE-030edit.jpeg)
"fine, whatever..."
Thankfully the next rev or two of wearables will be less obtrusive to the point where you will have no way of
knowing if the person is using them - they exist today in sunglasses, etc., already.
Quote from: a2capt on April 18, 2014, 04:30:00 PM
At least this release says "you can't record people in the shower", which is a no brainer. Too bad we've got to resort to actually saying stuff like that.
If it makes anyone feel any better (it won't), I just now completed the BSA Youth protection training - required for me to drive
a trailer with Scouts in it to camping - it the same stuff. Until you can mandate common sense, this doesn't fix things
except making everyone feel like everyone else is a predator.
In every case of abuse I have ever seen in CAP or the Scouts, it's always been a compounded situation of
people ignoring warning signs and their spidey sense because they don't want to offend someone
or "it's none of my business".
I agree wholeheartedly that basic steps like 2-up, no private talks, and limiting social media are fine,
at least they provide the "protection theater" that may reduce CAP's attractiveness to predators (in the
same way the TSA is essentially "security theater"), but any policies that impede operations, to zero
benefit, need to be stopped before they are typed in draft form.
As written, Mary Feik and Maj Gen Amy Couter would be prohibited from serving as the only chaperons for a trip to the Air and Space Museum if the
group included male cadets.
Moving the goal posts! This now takes effect TODAY. (some requirements delayed until 01 Oct 2014, basically the taking of the new course which doesn't exist yet)
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/?updated_cap_publishes_revised_cadet_protection_policy&show=entry&blogID=1244 (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/?updated_cap_publishes_revised_cadet_protection_policy&show=entry&blogID=1244)
Quote from: cm42 on April 18, 2014, 05:25:41 PM
Moving the goal posts! This now takes effect TODAY. (some requirements delayed until 01 Oct 2014, basically the taking of the new course which doesn't exist yet)
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/?updated_cap_publishes_revised_cadet_protection_policy&show=entry&blogID=1244 (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/?updated_cap_publishes_revised_cadet_protection_policy&show=entry&blogID=1244)
Every day, in every way, things get better and better.
Quote from: cm42 on April 18, 2014, 05:25:41 PM
Moving the goal posts! This now takes effect TODAY. (some requirements delayed until 01 Oct 2014, basically the taking of the new course which doesn't exist yet)
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/?updated_cap_publishes_revised_cadet_protection_policy&show=entry&blogID=1244 (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/?updated_cap_publishes_revised_cadet_protection_policy&show=entry&blogID=1244)
Co-ed supervision and the requirement to complete non-existent courses is waived until Oct. New Form 32 required
today.So...
All those cadets at risk by non-gender biased supervision between now and then just have to "take their chances"?
..and yet another spectacularly stellar shining example of "the left is not talking to the right".
I bet they claim the previous was a "premature" release.
.. if they would just quit frustrating people, they might not have such a retention problem.
Uh...
So, in the regulation it says see CAPP 52-23 (the updated version) but then NHQ says it won't be published until "this summer"
What.is.going.on????
Hey, if the weather itself can't get it right, NHQ can claim this is now Summer, right?
My unit has two female SMs (one is a cadet's mom) and five female cadets (out of 18 total on the books). Both of my females SMs are dedicated and I'm sure both would have no problem chaperoning an overnight. However, one has srong time constraints and the other has ongoing health issues that would ptentially get in the way.
I was planning on having a parents' meeting as the new CC to go over our SoP, especially as we have a bunch of newer cadets. I think I'm going to ask if there are any other moms that would volunteer to be CSMs just for this reason. I'm going to ask my wife, too, as our son is a cadet. As I recruit new cadets, I'm going to make an effort to at least bring out this aspect of the CPP until I build decent number of both female SMs and CSM to cover our activities.
I'm also lucky enough to have several other units within an hours drive that I have good relationships with. I might try to build some more joint activities with them to increase the pool of available female SMs.
May I point out a silver lining? This is an excellent discussion starter for cadet leadership training, especially in the later phases.
Here's a quote from our very own Phase 4 Leadership curriculum (from 15.3,
Keeping Change on Track):
QuoteChange is often imposed without advance assessment of the issues, questions, concerns, and ideas of the stakeholders—those most involved and most able to influence the outcome. Yet if questions remain unanswered and concerns unaddressed, employees may be distracted and distressed. This carries a high potential cost. How often have we experienced the frustration of dealing with a distracted employee in a business providing a product or service? Very often, a poorly managed change process lies behind that negative customer experience.
Would anyone like to cite a recent example of a change that resulted in a negative customer experience? How could this change have been better managed? How could following the steps in section 15.2 have resulted in a better experience for the organization and its customers?
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2014, 05:04:17 PM
As written, Mary Feik and Maj Gen Amy Couter would be prohibited from serving as the only chaperons for a trip to the Air and Space Museum if the
group included male cadets.
Doesn't Didn't Mary Feik hand out Feik ribbons to cadets
back in the old days before yesterday?
Has anyone considered that IACE is an "overnight activity?"
You folks commited to CP are stellar, really carry the ball. So sorry the human reproductive plumbing system is such a central issue now. I think it takes some courage, in this climate, to devote time to CP. My sqdn is small, composite, with two female cadets. No female SMS. Not sure where this leaves CP for us.
I do O rides, but that's it as far as CP. No time, but truth be told, I'd stay clear, regardless. What a minefield.
It doesn't change anything day-to-day, but your unit would be precluded from unit-centric overnight activities.
Here's another unforeseen consequence...
Units are going to be disinclined to invite members from other units to participate in their activities if they have
female cadets.
By Lordmonar's reasoning, Unit 1's bivouac, which was all females, has to be canceled, because a male cadet from
Unit 2 decides on a whim he wants to go. (See what I did there?)
Next the "Just get more CSMs!" attitude leads to more trouble, because by design these parents
are there specifically for their children, and not invested or indoctrinated in the organization itself.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2014, 03:32:45 PM
By Lordmonar's reasoning, Unit 1's bivouac, which was all females, has to be canceled, because a male cadet from
Unit 2 decides on a whim he wants to go. (See what I did there?)
Okay....I run my program for my cadets.....so no I don't need to cancel and I can exclude this cadet from my activity.....not because he is male...but because he is not no in my unit and I did not offer this event to everyone....just my cadets.
But either way.......it is a leadership obstacle that needs to be managed.
You all are out there dooming and glooming and saying this is not going to work. The thing is.....we have already been teaching this as a good rule of thumb for years and years.
Sure it was not a requirement in the past.....but it is and always has been a good idea.
Now it is a requirement. Deal with it. Move on.
There's a difference between a best practice that can be relaxed when necessaarty and an untenable mandate.
Quote from: Alaric on April 17, 2014, 05:47:13 PM
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on April 17, 2014, 05:31:51 PM
Quite the lead time on this. Effective 1 Oct 2014.
Just in time to affect the NER Conference
Not a problem...NER established very similar processes and used them for 2010 and 2012 conferences...in fact, some of the text on special events sounds like drafters of the new reg saw NER's guidelines.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2014, 04:31:04 PM
There's a difference between a best practice that can be relaxed when necessaarty and an untenable mandate.
Well....I guess that's the rub......who gets to determine if it is untenable?
Because that's where we are right now. Two days into the mandate and we get a lot of people saying "I just can't do it"! However, if I were a group or wing commander and you were saying this to me personally.......I might just have to say "Oh....okay. Maybe I just have to find someone who can".
Look....I know this is going to be a pain in the FPOC. I know that there are a lot of units out there that are now going to have to do some work to get into compliance. But....the subject matter experts say this is the best way of keeping or cadets safe....let's do it this way.
Sure it sucks......sure it is going to cause problems.....sure we could have had a better transition period......but it is all just excuses right now.
Units have six months to get compliant. Commanders need to get cracking and doing their job of manning, equipping and training their units to perform assigned missions.
This is no different than all the other mandates came down the pike.........IS 300 and 400, Aircraft Ground Handling, CPP training for all seniors and cadets over 18, safety compliance.........these are all obstacles that leaders have to meet to do their jobs.
Now we can (and do) complain about them not being necessary, being bad ideas, being a waste of time......but there they are.....we overcome and move on.......or we just move on.
I still have not heard a valid argument about not having the co-ed supervision....beyond "It means I'm going to have to do some more work to pull off these overnight events".
If you having trouble......go to group and wing and ask for help....that's one of the reason why they are there.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 04:56:31 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2014, 04:31:04 PM
There's a difference between a best practice that can be relaxed when necessaarty and an untenable mandate.
Well....I guess that's the rub......who gets to determine if it is untenable?
The membership.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 04:56:31 PM
Maybe I just have to find someone who can".
Good luck with that - there's such an abundance of members, especially those with the ability to be good commanders, that should be no problem.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 04:56:31 PM
Commanders need to get cracking and doing their job of manning, equipping and training their units to perform assigned missions.
Yes, this will be the siren "call to arms" to get commanders to "do their jobs". Good intentions, regulations, SUIs, and common sense haven't worked
to this point, but a reg that makes their life more difficult, that's the answer!
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 04:56:31 PM
This is no different than all the other mandates came down the pike.........IS 300 and 400, Aircraft Ground Handling, CPP training for all seniors and cadets over 18, safety compliance.........these are all obstacles that leaders have to meet to do their jobs.
This is 100% different.
These are all mandates which are, in fact, "manageable", not to mention accomplishable on an individucal basis, with no ramifications for anyone else,
or the unit as a whole. Want to be an ICS staffer? Great go do ICS 300, but that doesn't stop the rest of the unit from going to a mission while we wait for you.
Nor does it even stop >you< from being there in trainee status. Not to mention a unit CC can bring in whatever training they need.
Haven't done your GHV? Sorry, you can't fly, but these other cadets still don't go.
We have zero control over who joins, where they join, or what they are interested in doing. That's the problem with these mandates,
they pre-suppose a military staffing model where none exists, and worse, they require a level of command imperative and intestinal fortitude
which is essentially the opposite of NHQ's actual posture on member relations.
"You must and will do 'x', 'y', and 'z', however we have no way to help you get the resources or manpower to do it, and oh, by the way
making people sad makes them quit, so don't do anything that sounds like being "bossy".
A commander could spend a year
recruiting females adults, only to find a unit with a 50/50 demographic and no one interested in doing overnights, and there is no way
to mandate otherwise. None.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 04:56:31 PM
....go to group and wing and ask for help....that's one of the reason why they are there.
We are all ears on how group or wing is going to "help".
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 04:56:31 PM
Units have six months to get compliant.
And again, if this is a legitimate safety issue, which it is most certainly >NOT<, then why isn't is effective immediately?
We are going into the main part of the year where overnight activities occur.
"Sorry, that would make people sad, so you cadets will just have to risk it until October."
If it's necessary, it's necessary TODAY, and if it's not necessary TODAY, it's not necessary at
all.
Legitimate safety issues don't get ignored because of manpower issues, but ill-conceive, last minute "good ideas", do
so that the landing is softer and there won't be as much push back.
And there we are.
You have decided.....with out even trying......that there is now way to recruit, train, and lead the personnel necessary to perform the mission.
I don't want to turn this into a personal attack....but really....these are just excuses.
I don't know how group and wing are going to help......because I'm not there.
But that is not the issue.
When training a new guy to do his job........we say....if you run into trouble.....ask for help.
Sometimes the next guy up doesn't know what to do....so he goes up the chain as well.
When we actually try to solve the problem....we may still fail.....but we tried.
But today......April 18, 2014 (two days into the untenable mandate) the "membership" has decided that we can't do it. I guess we should just close up shop and all join the Boy Scouts and move on.
Oh Snark! The Boy Scouts have had this rule for years and years! Why aren't their units folding left and right?
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 05:22:16 PM
Oh Snark! The Boy Scouts have had this rule for years and years! Why aren't their units folding left and right?
Um, you do know what the term "Boy" in "Boy Scouts" means, right?
Venture doesn't count as it is such a small portion of the program that it is meaningless in the conversation.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2014, 05:19:05 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 04:56:31 PM
Units have six months to get compliant.
And again, if this is a legitimate safety issue, which it is most certainly >NOT<, then why isn't is effective immediately?
We are going into the main part of the year where overnight activities occur.
"Sorry, that would make people sad, so you cadets will just have to risk it until October."
If it's necessary, it's necessary TODAY, and if it's not necessary TODAY, it's not necessary at all.
Legitimate safety issues don't get ignored because of manpower issues, but ill-conceive, last minute "good ideas", do
so that the landing is softer and there won't be as much push back.
Because the leadership knows that we have been operating under the old rules for years.....and they know that we are entering the period where most wings and units are doing lots off overnight activites.......and that they understand that this is going to be a pain in the butt and that a lot of planning, recruiting and training is going to have to be done to make this happen.
So they have us time to get it done.
The risk has always been there.....we have just been ignoring it.
The subject matter experts talked to other subject matter experts.....including CAP members.....and this is what they think is the best way of doing it.
At some point we are just going to have to say "Shut up and color". So you got two jobs right now....if you truly feel this is a bad idea....then you got to a) start doing what you need to do to get your program into compliance....and b) you need to start going through channels to challenge what you think is a bad idea.
I see a lot of belly aching....and I get it......it is going to be a lot of work for a lot of squadrons. We are going to have to either change what events we do, or we are going to have to find way to convince more women to join and then go to these overnight events. That is going to such big time.......I'm with you.
But as a group leader.......you saying it is "untenable" with out even trying, and that is not painting a good picture.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 05:44:33 PM
But as a group leader.......you saying it is "untenable" with out even trying, and that is not painting a good picture.
Call a "spade" a "heart" to make people feel better doesn't change what it is.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2014, 05:33:09 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 05:22:16 PM
Oh Snark! The Boy Scouts have had this rule for years and years! Why aren't their units folding left and right?
Um, you do know what the term "Boy" in "Boy Scouts" means, right?
Venture doesn't count as it is such a small portion of the program that it is meaningless in the conversation.
It is not meaningless....it is exactly what I am talking about. The BSA venture program has been Co-Ed for since forever! With pretty much the same same rules as we are talking about here. And the venture program is still going strong.
My point is........it is possible to recruit women. It is possible to convince these women to do the necessary training to be qualified to be supervisors for overnight activities.
So.......why can BSA Venture units succeed in manning, training and equipping their units to accomplish their assigned missions......but CAP CP units can't.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 05:52:23 PM
So.......why can BSA Venture units succeed in manning, training and equipping their units to accomplish their assigned missions......but CAP CP units can't.
It's a different demographic entirely. You turn Venture into a paramilitary organization vs the social
organization it is today and see how long it takes to make them look like CAP.
GA flying is decidedly a male endeavor.
The military is a decidedly male endeavor.
And while it might be to their detriment, and there are plenty of people trying to change that, the simple
fact is that the majority of woman and girls simply aren't interested in either.
Wishing that changes someday doesn't change it today, nor maybe ever.
The current policy allows for anyone interested to join with no back-pressure. The new policy adds more
pressure to the very situation NHQ professes to be seeking to change, namely diversity in the ranks.
If Cadet Charlie knows two awesome girls in his school who would "love CAP" but he also is aware that
if they join his beloved annual bivouac would probably be canceled, is he going to be inclined to seek them
out as members? You think 13 year olds think in abstract terms? No, they want to go camping.
Same goes for the adults. Human nature is to avoid pain, not invite it into your life when it isn't necessary.
The fact remains that it is easy for the BOY Scouts of America to say that co-ed supervision i s
required on any activities which are co-ed when they know darn well that for the VAST, VAST, VAST majority
of their membership, that is nothing more then meaningless rehtoric.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 05:52:23 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2014, 05:33:09 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 05:22:16 PM
Oh Snark! The Boy Scouts have had this rule for years and years! Why aren't their units folding left and right?
Um, you do know what the term "Boy" in "Boy Scouts" means, right?
Venture doesn't count as it is such a small portion of the program that it is meaningless in the conversation.
It is not meaningless....it is exactly what I am talking about. The BSA venture program has been Co-Ed for since forever! With pretty much the same same rules as we are talking about here. And the venture program is still going strong.
My point is........it is possible to recruit women. It is possible to convince these women to do the necessary training to be qualified to be supervisors for overnight activities.
So.......why can BSA Venture units succeed in manning, training and equipping their units to accomplish their assigned missions......but CAP CP units can't.
It was my understanding that not every Venture crew is co-ed; that they can also choose to be all-male or all-female. If that's true, then that would give them more flexibility than what we have in CAP. Their membership numbers are also much, much higher than CAP's. And so are their resources.
http://www.hoac-bsa.org/venturing (http://www.hoac-bsa.org/venturing) (This verbiage is in a number of other sources, this one was handy.)
"Venturing crews and Sea Scout ships can be coed, all-male, or all-female. The chartered organization and the leadership make that decision."
Boy Scouts - no female Scouts, ergo rhetoric only.
Venture Crews - local decision, ergo, best practice only.
Also, being a nonsecular, religiously involved, if not based organization, the BSA has pretty much shown it
can do whatever it wants in regards to the separation of genders, etc., up to and including prohibiting
females leaders from participating in over night activities if the Committee so deems.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 19, 2014, 06:28:11 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 05:52:23 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2014, 05:33:09 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 05:22:16 PM
Oh Snark! The Boy Scouts have had this rule for years and years! Why aren't their units folding left and right?
Um, you do know what the term "Boy" in "Boy Scouts" means, right?
Venture doesn't count as it is such a small portion of the program that it is meaningless in the conversation.
It is not meaningless....it is exactly what I am talking about. The BSA venture program has been Co-Ed for since forever! With pretty much the same same rules as we are talking about here. And the venture program is still going strong.
My point is........it is possible to recruit women. It is possible to convince these women to do the necessary training to be qualified to be supervisors for overnight activities.
So.......why can BSA Venture units succeed in manning, training and equipping their units to accomplish their assigned missions......but CAP CP units can't.
It was my understanding that not every Venture crew is co-ed; that they can also choose to be all-male or all-female. If that's true, then that would give them more flexibility than what we have in CAP. Their membership numbers are also much, much higher than CAP's. And so are their resources.
True...but if they are Co-Ed...then they got to have Co-Ed supervision.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 07:48:55 PM
True...but if they are Co-Ed...then they got to have Co-Ed supervision.
Their ability to self-select removes them from relevance in this context.
Allow a CAP Unit CC the same choice and this conversation is over.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2014, 07:53:07 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 07:48:55 PM
True...but if they are Co-Ed...then they got to have Co-Ed supervision.
Their ability to self-select removes them from relevance in this context.
Allow a CAP Unit CC the same choice and this conversation is over.
But we don't have that option. But the Venture Example is still releveant....as they are still able to recruit and train enough people to do their operations.
So I go back to my original statement.
Other then "it's just hard"........why can't we (CAP) recruit and train enough people to accomplish our mission?
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 08:18:58 PM
But we don't have that option. But the Venture Example is still releveant....as they are still able to recruit and train enough people to do their operations.
No - you don't know that. You made an assumption that Venture crews = CAP in regards to this issue, and they don't
They are able to staff their operations with the option of not having co-ed crew.
Different, irrelevant scenarios.
We aren't discussing "best practice", we're discussing the practical realities.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 08:18:58 PM
...why can't we (CAP) recruit and train enough people to accomplish our mission?
Lack of leadership.
Lack of command imperative.
Too many distractions from our core mission.
Too many people "empowered" to make noise, but not "required" to do their CAP jobs.
The
fact of the matter is we can't do it
now, and haven't been effective at retention for a couple of decades.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 08:18:58 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2014, 07:53:07 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2014, 07:48:55 PM
True...but if they are Co-Ed...then they got to have Co-Ed supervision.
Their ability to self-select removes them from relevance in this context.
Allow a CAP Unit CC the same choice and this conversation is over.
But we don't have that option. But the Venture Example is still releveant....as they are still able to recruit and train enough people to do their operations.
So I go back to my original statement.
Other then "it's just hard"........why can't we (CAP) recruit and train enough people to accomplish our mission?
Scouting is a family activity. CAP is a military auxiliary.
I have female senior members in my unit that cannot or will not attend overnight activities.
Forcing units to have coed supervision on overnight activities does not make cadets safer.
This is dumb, it should be changed. I will be having a conversation with my Wing Commander to bring it to the Region Commander.
If NHQ really thought this was a great super-dooper idea, why did they sneak it into the regs without any chance of input from the membership?
Because they can.
Quote from: Panache on April 20, 2014, 04:37:17 AM
If NHQ really thought this was a great super-dooper idea, why did they sneak it into the regs without any chance of input from the membership?
Didn't everyone scream about this in the draft too?
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 20, 2014, 04:57:26 AM
Quote from: Panache on April 20, 2014, 04:37:17 AM
If NHQ really thought this was a great super-dooper idea, why did they sneak it into the regs without any chance of input from the membership?
Didn't everyone scream about this in the draft too?
Yes, this was a major point of contention when the draft was posted. I know I personally discussed this at length in my comments, as well as my wing/CC and region vice.
Obviously to no avail....
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 20, 2014, 04:57:26 AM
Quote from: Panache on April 20, 2014, 04:37:17 AM
If NHQ really thought this was a great super-dooper idea, why did they sneak it into the regs without any chance of input from the membership?
Didn't everyone scream about this in the draft too?
I stand corrected. I didn't remember seeing that in the draft.
Quote from: Panache on April 20, 2014, 05:40:35 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 20, 2014, 04:57:26 AM
Quote from: Panache on April 20, 2014, 04:37:17 AM
If NHQ really thought this was a great super-dooper idea, why did they sneak it into the regs without any chance of input from the membership?
Didn't everyone scream about this in the draft too?
I stand corrected. I didn't remember seeing that in the draft.
It was there and it was discussed on this board and several others. And National does not
need any kind of input at all from the "membership" when they write regs.
It's nice when they ask for it, but it's not required.
Quote from: PHall on April 20, 2014, 03:26:56 PM
Quote from: Panache on April 20, 2014, 05:40:35 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 20, 2014, 04:57:26 AM
Quote from: Panache on April 20, 2014, 04:37:17 AM
If NHQ really thought this was a great super-dooper idea, why did they sneak it into the regs without any chance of input from the membership?
Didn't everyone scream about this in the draft too?
I stand corrected. I didn't remember seeing that in the draft.
It was there and it was discussed on this board and several others. And National does not need any kind of input at all from the "membership" when they write regs.
It's nice when they ask for it, but it's not required.
Panache
Why do you say in one post that they sneaked the reg in without input from the field and in another reference the draft being posted? That was the time for input.
Quote from: PHall on April 20, 2014, 03:26:56 PMIt was there and it was discussed on this board and several others. And National does not need any kind of input at all from the "membership" when they write regs. It's nice when they ask for it, but it's not required.
100% correct, however in cases like these, which require both the
letter of compliance as well as the
spirit of compliance,
you need the buy-in of the membership to actually achieve your goals.
In other words, complying with the letter on this is simple, however I doubt that canceling overnight activities or discouraging female
cadets from joining is NHQ's goal, and that is absolutely going to be the unintended consequence of this.
In the draft for review, co-ed leadership was not a requirement. It was encouraged, much as it has been. The August 2013 draft for review, http://www.capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/5216_with_CPP_C95D11A509576.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/5216_with_CPP_C95D11A509576.pdf), mandated that overnight activities without gender-balanced leadership would indicate so on the parental permission form. Same with round two, which can be found here: http://www.capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/CAPR_5210_Round_2_coordination_1865CE9A135F4.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/CAPR_5210_Round_2_coordination_1865CE9A135F4.pdf)
That approach made sense. Likewise, the two-deep rule in the drafts provided for some exceptions for short-duration activities, with accompanying risk mitigation procedures (limited duration, parental notification, open meetings, etc).
In short, the draft rules encouraged a best practice while providing mitigation in circumstances where the resources did not support the best practice - a well thought-out and balanced approach. The changes and rushed implementation have created unnecessary obstacles to effective implementation.
Quote from: PHall on April 20, 2014, 03:26:56 PM
Quote from: Panache on April 20, 2014, 05:40:35 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 20, 2014, 04:57:26 AM
Quote from: Panache on April 20, 2014, 04:37:17 AM
If NHQ really thought this was a great super-dooper idea, why did they sneak it into the regs without any chance of input from the membership?
Didn't everyone scream about this in the draft too?
I stand corrected. I didn't remember seeing that in the draft.
It was there and it was discussed on this board and several others. And National does not need any kind of input at all from the "membership" when they write regs.
It's nice when they ask for it, but it's not required.
They better understand they need input - they better start figuring that out real soon.
Easy guys... same team...
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 20, 2014, 08:09:31 PM
Easy guys... same team...
No not really. NHQ is run by lawyers now. Lawyers are only on their own team. One of the reasons I left.
You left? Thats a loss.
Bummer.
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 20, 2014, 08:09:31 PM
Easy guys... same team...
Caring about the team is a primary motive for seeking a rationale and executable CPP.
I actually suspect most of the NHQ CP staff worked hard on this. Overall, it's a good document and after reviewing the drafts I was looking forward to implementation. I've even had a couple of parent briefs.
I'm just puzzled and hurt by what seems to be "end-game" changes that don't make sense, negatively impact the team, and seem to have been rushed into effect - without explanation.
All it really needs is a little consideration for the realities of CAP life along with mitigation steps when the ideal can't be met. We are talking about a sentence or two allowing for parental approval and a plan submitted up echelon. That's a far cry from asking for anything unreasonable.
Quote from: MSG Mac on April 20, 2014, 04:24:57 PM
Panache
Why do you say in one post that they sneaked the reg in without input from the field and in another reference the draft being posted? That was the time for input.
In one post I said they sneaked in the reg without input, but I was corrected, in which I acknowledged my error and stated I didn't see that in the draft.
But as Lt. Col. Tim Day pointed out a couple of posts up, maybe I was correct initially when I observed it was not in the draft.
Quote from: Lt Col Tim Day on April 20, 2014, 06:51:19 PM
That approach made sense. Likewise, the two-deep rule in the drafts provided for some exceptions for short-duration activities, with accompanying risk mitigation procedures (limited duration, parental notification, open meetings, etc).
To add to this, the exceptions to the two deep rule in the drafts allowed solo leadership during the regular weekly meetings. I asked for clarification on this since that language is missing in the published requlation, and the answer was that the two deep rule applies to the regular weekly meetings, too.
IMHO, that's gonna break a lot of CAP. Go out and recruit more SMs doesn't help when one of the two scheduled leaders has to miss a cadet meeting on short notice due to work or other unforseen circumstances.
I'm new to the organization, so maybe my question is naive:
But:
If CPP is already very clear on the obvious rules of "no cadets and SMs in same changing room/sleeping room/shower facilities," Why the heck does having both genders of chaperons even matter?
As I understand it, our current policy never, under any circumstances, allows for ANY ADULT to be in a "compromising" situation with a cadet of any gender. If a female cadet was on a squadron trip, and started having "female issues" (whatever that may be), even a female SM would be banned from doing anything to assist the cadet that a male SM could not also do. Solution: Have the cadet directly phone her mother, explaining the problem, and then have the SM talk to the mother to work out the solution as two adults.
I fail to understand why it's inappropriate to have single gender chaperons, even if its still always ideal to have both male and female SMs.
You better get a grip on that nasty streak of common sense - it's not gonna serve you well in this organization. . .
Quote from: SunDog on April 20, 2014, 06:59:38 PM
Quote from: PHall on April 20, 2014, 03:26:56 PM
Quote from: Panache on April 20, 2014, 05:40:35 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 20, 2014, 04:57:26 AM
Quote from: Panache on April 20, 2014, 04:37:17 AM
If NHQ really thought this was a great super-dooper idea, why did they sneak it into the regs without any chance of input from the membership?
Didn't everyone scream about this in the draft too?
I stand corrected. I didn't remember seeing that in the draft.
It was there and it was discussed on this board and several others. And National does not need any kind of input at all from the "membership" when they write regs.
It's nice when they ask for it, but it's not required.
They better understand they need input - they better start figuring that out real soon.
Why, what's going to happen? ???
At first glance, looks like a lot of training coming up. Can you get away with using the current lesson plan to do the refresher training and get it over with before Oct?
That's another thing that bugs me. The way they publish regulations and guidelines without the education sections in place first. "Okay, we'll say this has to be done by XXX-XX, so that we can get the course/curriculum done by NNN-XX, and then everyone can take it".
That effectively lowers the time to comply considerably, but on paper an auditor doesn't see that, and says, "look, they had six whole months!"
That's what I've been complaining about Tony. They put cart before horse every time, not to mention there's no warning. One day it's not there the next, the whole system's changed. Grrrr
Quote from: PHall on April 21, 2014, 11:54:45 PM
Quote from: SunDog on April 20, 2014, 06:59:38 PM
Quote from: PHall on April 20, 2014, 03:26:56 PM
Quote from: Panache on April 20, 2014, 05:40:35 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 20, 2014, 04:57:26 AM
Quote from: Panache on April 20, 2014, 04:37:17 AM
If NHQ really thought this was a great super-dooper idea, why did they sneak it into the regs without any chance of input from the membership?
Didn't everyone scream about this in the draft too?
I stand corrected. I didn't remember seeing that in the draft.
It was there and it was discussed on this board and several others. And National does not need any kind of input at all from the "membership" when they write regs.
It's nice when they ask for it, but it's not required.
They better understand they need input - they better start figuring that out real soon.
Why, what's going to happen? ???
Oh, geez, I think membership numbers will continue to rocket upwards, along with participation rates. People love buying a product from a well organized vendor, one that has such streamlined and well ordered business practices, and works so hard at making the experience one that respects the time, contributions, and energy of its membership. We won't be able to find meeting locations large enough to hold us all; it could precipitate an international shortage of blue blazers and BDUs. But I could be wrong. I often am.
Quote from: Grumpy on April 22, 2014, 01:32:24 AM
That's what I've been complaining about Tony. They put cart before horse every time, not to mention there's no warning. One day it's not there the next, the whole system's changed. Grrrr
The whole system as not changed!
Let's look at it really.
They upped the supervision from one to two senior members.
They changed the overnight activity supervisions to CO-ED.
They added training for cadets.
The added advanced training for Seniors who work with cadets.
The cleared up a lot of gray area stuff.....and marked out lines in the sand on "thou shall not pass"
They have not really made all that many changes.
The two member supervision.....is not a bad idea.
The co-ed supervision.....is not a bad idea.
The different training......is not a bad idea.
The world has not ended.
Sure we are going to have to do some work to get up to speed.
And that is what I am seeing right now......a bunch of supposed leaders who would rather doom and gloom.....instead of looking for way to meet this leadership challenge and get on with doing a great Cadet Program.
If people want to quit.......good bye....don't let the door hit you on your butt on the way out.
[/rant]
Quote from: lordmonar on April 22, 2014, 04:51:59 AM
The co-ed supervision.....is not a bad idea, however it is also not practical in today's CAP.
FTFY.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 22, 2014, 05:29:15 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 22, 2014, 04:51:59 AM
The co-ed supervision.....is not a bad idea, however it is also not practical in today's CAP.
FTFY.
You are right....that's why we got six months to fix it. Now stop belly aching and get to fixing it.
The thought processes at NHQ, apparently:
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l9fyefWTuW1qzoa9f.jpg)
Quote from: lordmonar on April 22, 2014, 05:32:44 AM
You are right....that's why we got six months to fix it. Now stop belly aching and get to fixing it.
Yes, six months...
First step is to change societal attitudes about females in the military, their interest
in aviation, not to mention the general decline of volunteerism in the US.
So that's probable May, or June at the latest.
In July we can rebuild the decades-long declining infrastructure of most wings, including
forcibly renewing the thousands of members who have left CAP, and undoing 15+ years of the BRAC
to insure we have the military support and resources to handle the influx of all the new members.
In August we can simply "recruit" the hundreds of female members who were disinterested
in CAP up until this point, but are not flocking to recruiting tents because...reasons.
That still leaves two open months in case the above runs a little long.
I'm excited! Let's roll!
Quote from: SunDog on April 22, 2014, 03:25:10 AM
Quote from: PHall on April 21, 2014, 11:54:45 PM
Quote from: SunDog on April 20, 2014, 06:59:38 PM
Quote from: PHall on April 20, 2014, 03:26:56 PM
Quote from: Panache on April 20, 2014, 05:40:35 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 20, 2014, 04:57:26 AM
Quote from: Panache on April 20, 2014, 04:37:17 AM
If NHQ really thought this was a great super-dooper idea, why did they sneak it into the regs without any chance of input from the membership?
Didn't everyone scream about this in the draft too?
I stand corrected. I didn't remember seeing that in the draft.
It was there and it was discussed on this board and several others. And National does not need any kind of input at all from the "membership" when they write regs.
It's nice when they ask for it, but it's not required.
They better understand they need input - they better start figuring that out real soon.
Why, what's going to happen? ???
Oh, geez, I think membership numbers will continue to rocket upwards, along with participation rates. People love buying a product from a well organized vendor, one that has such streamlined and well ordered business practices, and works so hard at making the experience one that respects the time, contributions, and energy of its membership. We won't be able to find meeting locations large enough to hold us all; it could precipitate an international shortage of blue blazers and BDUs. But I could be wrong. I often am.
Okay, I see where your thinking might be a little off track. You're attempting to use logic. Logic does not apply when you're dealing with National. Never has and never will.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 22, 2014, 05:50:10 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 22, 2014, 05:32:44 AM
You are right....that's why we got six months to fix it. Now stop belly aching and get to fixing it.
Yes, six months...
First step is to change societal attitudes about females in the military, their interest
in aviation, not to mention the general decline of volunteerism in the US.
So that's probable May, or June at the latest.
In July we can rebuild the decades-long declining infrastructure of most wings, including
forcibly renewing the thousands of members who have left CAP, and undoing 15+ years of the BRAC
to insure we have the military support and resources to handle the influx of all the new members.
In August we can simply "recruit" the hundreds of female members who were disinterested
in CAP up until this point, but are not flocking to recruiting tents because...reasons.
That still leaves two open months in case the above runs a little long.
I'm excited! Let's roll!
If you don't want to try.....and you don't think we are capable.....and you don't have any respect for either your leaders or your members.........maybe it is time for you to find a different organization to work with.
I got one of the largest squadrons in the U.S. I don't have a lot of female SM's and I don't have any who have yet shown in interest in going and spending the night in the field.
But I have already met with my commander and we are formulating a plan and will be implementing this plan in the next two weeks.
So.......If I think I can at least give it a try.....why can't you?
Maybe its because I'm an NCO.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 22, 2014, 06:38:14 AM
If you don't want to try.....and you don't think we are capable.....and you don't have any respect for either your leaders or your members.........maybe it is time for you to find a different organization to work with.
I got one of the largest squadrons in the U.S. I don't have a lot of female SM's and I don't have any who have yet shown in interest in going and spending the night in the field.
But I have already met with my commander and we are formulating a plan and will be implementing this plan in the next two weeks.
So.......If I think I can at least give it a try.....why can't you?
Maybe its because I'm an NCO.
Well, the new 52-10 sure is promoting teamwork and unity alright. Nice to see that NHQ thought this through.
Now, BRING OUT THE SHAMING CHAIR.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 22, 2014, 06:38:14 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 22, 2014, 05:50:10 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 22, 2014, 05:32:44 AM
You are right....that's why we got six months to fix it. Now stop belly aching and get to fixing it.
Yes, six months...
First step is to change societal attitudes about females in the military, their interest
in aviation, not to mention the general decline of volunteerism in the US.
So that's probable May, or June at the latest.
In July we can rebuild the decades-long declining infrastructure of most wings, including
forcibly renewing the thousands of members who have left CAP, and undoing 15+ years of the BRAC
to insure we have the military support and resources to handle the influx of all the new members.
In August we can simply "recruit" the hundreds of female members who were disinterested
in CAP up until this point, but are not flocking to recruiting tents because...reasons.
That still leaves two open months in case the above runs a little long.
I'm excited! Let's roll!
If you don't want to try.....and you don't think we are capable.....and you don't have any respect for either your leaders or your members.........maybe it is time for you to find a different organization to work with.
I got one of the largest squadrons in the U.S. I don't have a lot of female SM's and I don't have any who have yet shown in interest in going and spending the night in the field.
But I have already met with my commander and we are formulating a plan and will be implementing this plan in the next two weeks.
So.......If I think I can at least give it a try.....why can't you?
Maybe its because I'm an NCO.
MSgt,
You're assuming folks aren't simultaneously making plans to make it work as best as they can while also working to propose a more reasonable, executable, and effective policy. You're making a classic leadership mistake, which is to assume that complaining is a mark of laziness versus a sign of people that actually care about the organization enough to point out issues they believe will have a negative impact on our mission.
Since you played the NCO card, I'll mention here that it was a senior NCO who once drew my attention to the way this principle was at work on my crew while deployed in combat. That was a "Sir, request permission to speak bluntly" moment that taught me a lot about my own leadership flaws and helped me become an effective mission commander - a lesson for which I'm still grateful.
Our cadets actually learn about this in their leadership syllabus, which might be worth a re-read (or first-time read for those of us who haven't read through it). There's actually some really good material in there.
As Colin Powell said:
"The day the soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership."
Quote from: lordmonar on April 22, 2014, 06:38:14 AM
But I have already met with my commander and we are formulating a plan and will be implementing this plan in the next two weeks.
And what, exactly is your "plan" to recruit new female senior members?
Col Day....you are of course, correct.....complaining is not the same as just quitting.
I apologizes to anyone who took offense.
Talked to my wife. She said hell no.
Quote from: NC Hokie on April 21, 2014, 04:46:31 PM
Quote from: Lt Col Tim Day on April 20, 2014, 06:51:19 PM
That approach made sense. Likewise, the two-deep rule in the drafts provided for some exceptions for short-duration activities, with accompanying risk mitigation procedures (limited duration, parental notification, open meetings, etc).
To add to this, the exceptions to the two deep rule in the drafts allowed solo leadership during the regular weekly meetings. I asked for clarification on this since that language is missing in the published requlation, and the answer was that the two deep rule applies to the regular weekly meetings, too.
IMHO, that's gonna break a lot of CAP. Go out and recruit more SMs doesn't help when one of the two scheduled leaders has to miss a cadet meeting on short notice due to work or other unforseen circumstances.
I agree; this (the re-written 52-10) started out well and ended badly. The drafts were good 9finally) and quite encouraging but the final version misses so many points that I can't help thinking it did not take into account most of the feedback or even the experience of other organizations.
We're planning a senior staff meeting to discuss the local implementation of the news regs - **not** a discussion on how to end run them but on how to work within them and admitting to ourselves what we can do and what we are no longer willing or able to do. Recruiting female Senior Members has been a problem here for several years which hasn't caused collateral problems as we only had one female cadet who, with help from our neighboring squadrons :clap: , was able to participate fully in all aspects of the CAP program. We're going to write some contingency plans for those occasions when you are that person on your own!
The suggestion of more CSMs doesn't wash with me (personal and very biased viewed - YMMV). My experience has been universally bad. Again, very personal and YMMV.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on April 22, 2014, 01:44:36 PM
Talked to my wife. She said hell no.
Funnily enough...mine also! ;)
Okay, in case no one has seen this, the CAPR 52-10 01 October 2014 bulletin has been rescinded according to the website. So apparently and hopefully they have heard your complaints and are making the appropriate modifications.
The date was moved up to 18 April vice 1 Oct.
Quote from: LSThiker on April 22, 2014, 02:17:21 PM
Okay, in case no one has seen this, the CAPR 52-10 01 October 2014 bulletin has been rescinded according to the website. So apparently and hopefully they have heard your complaints and are making the appropriate modifications.
Doesnt look like they've done anything new, as the two waivers discussed in the most recent Cadet Blog post were already included in the new CAPR 52-10.
Quote from: MSG Mac on April 22, 2014, 02:23:16 PM
The date was moved up to 18 April vice 1 Oct.
Well there went a hopeful dream. So much for that I guess.
Yup, all they did was make sure that the one that references 1 Oct, is not findable, and that's rare for them to do. You can usually find many older publications still on their crummy excuse for a content management system.
That's why there should be no hash marked unique URLs. Every regulation should be at the same place, the current one replaces the last one. Any links will always be the latest. Filenames for drafts, proposals, whims, whatever, should be labeled clearly as such.
Quote from: Brit_in_CAP on April 22, 2014, 01:58:29 PMThe suggestion of more CSMs doesn't wash with me (personal and very biased viewed - YMMV). My experience has been universally bad. Again, very personal and YMMV.
+1
Thinking that adding more ill-informed adults in positions of defacto leadership is more misunderstanding of
the totality of the challenges facing CAP.
Quote from: Brit_in_CAP on April 22, 2014, 01:58:29 PM
The suggestion of more CSMs doesn't wash with me (personal and very biased viewed - YMMV). My experience has been universally bad. Again, very personal and YMMV.
I've never really liked the the CSM program because I feel like a thief when I ask a parent to pay for the priviledge of joining as a CSM. IMHO, if I ask for your help, I shouldn't expect you to pay me for it.
Quote from: a2capt on April 22, 2014, 02:30:51 PMThat's why there should be no hash marked unique URLs. Every regulation should be at the same place, the current one replaces the last one. Any links will always be the latest. Filenames for drafts, proposals, whims, whatever, should be labeled clearly as such.
Another simple, clear issue, with a simple clear answer, implemented in the most convoluted way possible and at cost to
the membership and the organization.
Why does CAP emulate mostly the negative sides of gov'mint and the military while ignoring the stuff we actually
need like strong leadership and holding people accountable? CAP's paradigm should give us the ability to
reach for the best from government, the military, private industry, and volunteer organizations, yet the only thing
generally achieved starts with "Charlie" and end with "Foxtrot".
Quote from: lordmonar on April 22, 2014, 06:38:14 AM
I got one of the largest squadrons in the U.S.
That's an exception, not the rule. Most CAP squadrons are small and lack the resources needed to continue meeting the many mandates and requirements that constantly come from higher headquarters.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 22, 2014, 06:38:14 AM
So.......If I think I can at least give it a try.....why can't you?
Maybe its because I'm an NCO.
Or perhaps in spite of it. >:D
Quote from: usafaux2004 on April 22, 2014, 01:44:36 PM
Talked to my wife. She said hell no.
So did mine.
My small sqdn hasn't had a female SM is some years - the last was a cadet mom, and she did logistics and something else I can't recall. When her son aged out, she dropped, too. The sqdn CP guys have re-built the program, and we have more than at any time in the past decade or more, with two or three female cadets in the program now.
Even before this, there have been some awkward moments - rainy winter night, female cadet's mom was late, the rest of the SMs had left. The CP guy was left with an older male cadet, and the young lady. Murphy's law, the male cadet's ride showed up first. Our CP SM felt his choices were stand out in the rain with her, or both stay inside and "risk it". I would have gotten wet, myself, but he has a kinder, gentler approach. No issues, no problems resulted.
Hindsight, it could have been avoided, but there was still a mob of cadets and parents milling around when the other SMs bolted - do we make a rule, two SM's hang until the last female cadet has left? That's still two males, which I guess is better than one. . .CP oriented SMs are usually the best of us; they deserve a well-thought out set of rules.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 22, 2014, 03:31:57 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 22, 2014, 06:38:14 AM
I got one of the largest squadrons in the U.S.
That's an exception, not the rule. Most CAP squadrons are small and lack the resources needed to continue meeting the many mandates and requirements that constantly come from higher headquarters.
Not to mention that if "one of the largest squadrons in the U.S." is admittedly having challenges in this area, what does
Podunk Composite do.
"One of the largest squadrons in the U.S." is going ot have significantly more resources, experience and knowledge
in recruiting then the average 3-man show. Not to mention your unit is affiliated with a >large< military base.
Quote from: SunDog on April 22, 2014, 04:20:38 PM
CP oriented SMs are usually the best of us; they deserve a well-thought out set of rules.
All three missions deserve well-thought out rules. If some GA best practice came out that it's safest to not fly below 3000' AGL except for take-off and landing would we adopt that? I'd guess not because our mission would be affected.
It was mentioned that the co-ed mandate for overnight is a best practice for youth organizations. Great, we had a regulation that said this is the ideal. Anyone one dealing in reality would have to agree this will affect our CP mission. We can try to mitigate the issue but it will still be there.
Wing X schedules female SM coverage for an entire encampment. Likely 1 deep for most of the time. Injury, work or family emergency, random Act of God and it's time to shut down the encampment. Nightmare. Out of state cadets, parents away, etc. Can you say EPIC FAIL?
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on April 22, 2014, 04:41:54 PM
Wing X schedules female SM coverage for an entire encampment. Likely 1 deep for most of the time. Injury, work or family emergency, random Act of God and it's time to shut down the encampment. Nightmare. Out of state cadets, parents away, etc. Can you say EPIC FAIL?
That won't shut down the encampment for the males, just the females would be sent packing.
Why wouldn't it? It is what the regulations say now. That it should be shut because it would be closed to females.
Flyer
Quote from: MSG Mac on April 22, 2014, 02:23:16 PM
The date was moved up to 18 April vice 1 Oct.
OK, so we're starting off behind schedule already. Granted, only a week. But we have no lesson plans for the new regulation until 1 Oct 14. When it comes to chapter 3 where it talks about refresher training, you can't get into the course because it blocks you out saying that you've already taken it.
I'm anxious to get started but should I use the current lesson plan and start my refresher training or wait until Oct which will leave me 5 months until the dead line of March 2015 comes up. Will I be able to get into the system to update the info through the Learning Management System?
Time? With everything Nat'l keeps tossing at us regarding training requirements for cadet training and senior training we're starting to have problems scheduling it all in one 2.5 hour session every week. I'm thinking of using one Saturday a month just to give the training for Level I and the the other required training done.
No, I'm not complaining. I'm thinking out loud. I wish when Nat'l releases the new regs and starts requiring the training they had the training materials in place and ready to use instead of catching up 6 months down the line.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on April 22, 2014, 06:18:55 PM
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on April 22, 2014, 04:41:54 PM
Wing X schedules female SM coverage for an entire encampment. Likely 1 deep for most of the time. Injury, work or family emergency, random Act of God and it's time to shut down the encampment. Nightmare. Out of state cadets, parents away, etc. Can you say EPIC FAIL?
That won't shut down the encampment for the males, just the females would be sent packing.
Quote from: flyer333555 on April 22, 2014, 06:23:12 PM
Why wouldn't it? It is what the regulations say now. That it should be shut because it would be closed to females.
Flyer
That's rub, right? Is it "discrimination" if only the females have to go home / can't participate because
of internal rules put in place for the cadets' protection?
Some here say it is, I say it's not, but then again ultimately it would be up to a judge to decide.
If nothing else, NHQ needs to provide clear guidelines as to what to do in these cases, or when an activity
is cancelled last minute because of the gender-bias requirement for supervision.
The wrath of one parent mad because her daughter can't go to encampment or is sent home will
be nothing compared to the wrath of 100 who want refunds, and rightly so. And I can tell you from
experience, few encampments, or even wings, could easily absorb having to refund an entire encampment.
Most encampments are run with budgets that are 1/2 or more the wing's annual budget.
Having read all the various message traffic this topic has generated, it is clear that this is a subject where good people can disagree. It is also apparent to me that as an active female SM, and a member of an encampment command staff, that a lot of pressure will be on me to "show up." I used to cover psychiatry in a female prison (another whole story) and was often asked to round on "high risk" inmates when two deep staffing was hard to find- I always insisted that the same escort rules be followed because allegations can happen same-sex just as much as co-ed. What seems to be being ignored is having coed staff in no way helps mitigate either harm or liability. Adherence to existing policies and procedures is what accomplishes this task.
Quote from: CAPAPRN on April 22, 2014, 07:42:49 PMWhat seems to be being ignored is having coed staff in no way helps mitigate either harm or liability. Adherence to existing policies and procedures is what accomplishes this task.
+1 x10.
Dad, who is also the Unit CC, can't chaperon Cadet Isagirl overnight, but some random CSM who never comes to meetings can.
There are plenty of female predators, and also a misguided idea that men can't deal with "lady problems", but females can.
On the Ground Handling video, is this somewhere that it has to be recorded in eServices prior to the flight?
.. or could it be made available at the flight location, and logged by signature/CAPID until someone enters them later in the day, like the CAPF 99 is handled?
Its recorded on the training tab upon completion.
Presumably you could not release the flight without it
if the cadets are on the WMIRS sortie.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 22, 2014, 07:48:34 PM
Quote from: CAPAPRN on April 22, 2014, 07:42:49 PMWhat seems to be being ignored is having coed staff in no way helps mitigate either harm or liability. Adherence to existing policies and procedures is what accomplishes this task.
+1 x10.
Dad, who is also the Unit CC, can't chaperon Cadet Isagirl overnight, but some random CSM who never comes to meetings can.
There are plenty of female predators, and also a misguided idea that men can't deal with "lady problems", but females can.
There are plenty of people, male and female, who make life difficult for the rest of us, however we (as members of CAP) are supposed to abide by our "Core Values". Our core value of "Respect" demands we treat our cadets with the highest regard to their status. Our core value of "Excellence" in all we do demands we treat our cadets the best way possible in encouraging their developement and potential without subjecting them to harm. Maybe something changed?
What brought on the change. Is there a major litigation dealing with the absence of coed supervision at an overnight activity? Were there problems with some cadets attending because of a perceived/real lack of personal safety? Did the BoG decide we need to change things? Are our Core Values meaningless?
I find it difficult to think this was just an arbitrary decision. Something must have occured to bring it on. In the mean time, I would suggest finding ways to recruit and retain members to handle this new requirement. CSM's seem to be the easiest way, but YMMV.
Quote from: a2capt on April 22, 2014, 08:01:28 PM
On the Ground Handling video, is this somewhere that it has to be recorded in eServices prior to the flight?
.. or could it be made available at the flight location, and logged by signature/CAPID until someone enters them later in the day, like the CAPF 99 is handled?
And don't count on it being there a hour after the training is done. I've seen some stuff take a full day to work its way through the software from e-Services to WIMRS...
Why was the effective date of October rescinded, especially if none of the training materials are ready?
The changes to online testing and a new curriculum seemed to go pretty well, but the encampment changes and CPPT has been horrendous.
"Ask the Commander"?
Quote from: FW on April 22, 2014, 08:13:35 PM
I find it difficult to think this was just an arbitrary decision.
In my experience in the corporate world, I can very easily think this was an arbitrary decision. Executives love to change things simply for the sake of change, so they can point back to it and say "See! I'm worth something! My input is valid and useful!"
Unfortunately, I've seen this happen before, many times. I'll help write a policy or procedure, which will be edited and reviewed many, many times. Then it'll be sent to the policy committee and probably sent back for revision. Eventually they'll approve it. And when I see it next, it'll have a couple of things added that weren't there before, and I certainly didn't write. If I ask around enough, I'll find out that some Manager or Director stuck something in at the last second after "final" approval and nobody thought it was a big deal, so why should I or the line employees? Just deal and make it work, or (more likely) circumvent it in a way that you can't get jammed up.
Huh. Seems a lot of like what happened here.
It's probably close enough in management's eyes; it'll either work out or they'll revisit it, if the howling/pain gets intense enough. Management by dartboard, with a few subjective "good ideas" thrown in.
Will cadets be better protected? Might be; maybe not. It'll look like they are, so if/when a bad actor crosses the line, it'll appear CAP had taken the risk seriously. Maybe NHQ (and/or the lawyers) figure the impact is worth the protection it provides the organization. A few cancelled or early dismissal events won't keep them up worrying at night.
So, not as bad as a train wreck, not as good as an organization with a future.
Interesting; I just clicked on the link for CAPR 52-10 in capmembers.com and got the regulation from 26 Dec 2012. Hmm...
So, the new CAPR 52-10 states the following:
Quote from: CAPR 52-10, 2-3
d. Two Deep Leadership. CAP's general policy is that every cadet activity must be supervised by at least two adult leaders who are in "Approved" status in eServices (see CAPR 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership). CPP training materials explain how that principle is put into practice. There are two exceptions to the "two deep leadership" rule:
(1) Cadet Flying, explained in 2-6a, and
(2) Real-World Operational Missions (not training) conducted under CAPR 60-3, CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions.
How is this policy going to affect ground team training? Do we need to have "two adult leaders who are in "Approved" status" on every ground team training sortie, especially during field training or exercises?
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 23, 2014, 03:43:49 PMInteresting; I just clicked on the link for CAPR 52-10 in capmembers.com and got the regulation from 26 Dec 2012. Hmm...
It's obvious they are short handed, with premature releases, more than one version of a file available at a time, etc.
Their choice of content management system isn't helping their mission. That thing is a mess.
I don't think NHQ is short handed. I think things are in transition to the "one staff" concept. It may be the staff still doesn't understand what their roles are, or the staff is in transition with the coming of the new commander. We can only guess.
Quote from: FW on April 23, 2014, 04:45:36 PM
I don't think NHQ is short handed. I think things are in transition to the "one staff" concept. It may be the staff still doesn't understand what their roles are, or the staff is in transition with the coming of the new commander. We can only guess.
We have 30k some adult members, many with specific skills who are dying to help for free.
There is no need or excuse for any department to be understaffed.
Is no one able to answer my previous question about the (potential) requirement for two "approved" adults during ground team training sorties?
Eclipse, where are you?
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 23, 2014, 04:03:08 PM
So, the new CAPR 52-10 states the following:
Quote from: CAPR 52-10, 2-3
d. Two Deep Leadership. CAP's general policy is that every cadet activity must be supervised by at least two adult leaders who are in "Approved" status in eServices (see CAPR 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership). CPP training materials explain how that principle is put into practice. There are two exceptions to the "two deep leadership" rule:
(1) Cadet Flying, explained in 2-6a, and
(2) Real-World Operational Missions (not training) conducted under CAPR 60-3, CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions.
How is this policy going to affect ground team training? Do we need to have "two adult leaders who are in "Approved" status" on every ground team training sortie, especially during field training or exercises?
I would say, as written, "yes", and in my opinion they both have to be at least GTM3-Ts, and if one is a "T" then
there has to be at least one GTM3 SET.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 23, 2014, 09:47:01 PM
and if one is a "T" then
there has to be at least one GTM3 SET.
...which could be a cadet
:)
I have no crystal ball or special insight into the cogs,
but I (imagine) that when this rule was written, overnight bivouacs and sarexes were in mind, probably moreso than an individual sortie from mission base on saturday afternoon.
However I agree, as written, 2 deep on every training sortie.
Yup.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 23, 2014, 09:47:01 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 23, 2014, 04:03:08 PM
So, the new CAPR 52-10 states the following:
Quote from: CAPR 52-10, 2-3
d. Two Deep Leadership. CAP's general policy is that every cadet activity must be supervised by at least two adult leaders who are in "Approved" status in eServices (see CAPR 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership). CPP training materials explain how that principle is put into practice. There are two exceptions to the "two deep leadership" rule:
(1) Cadet Flying, explained in 2-6a, and
(2) Real-World Operational Missions (not training) conducted under CAPR 60-3, CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions.
How is this policy going to affect ground team training? Do we need to have "two adult leaders who are in "Approved" status" on every ground team training sortie, especially during field training or exercises?
I would say, as written, "yes"...
That's going to cause additional pains.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 23, 2014, 09:47:01 PM
...and in my opinion they both have to be at least GTM3-Ts...
Agree.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 23, 2014, 09:47:01 PM
...and if one is a "T" then
there has to be at least one GTM3 SET.
Actually, no; there only has to be a qualified GTM3 supervisor (Ref. CAPR 60-3, 2-2.b.). But without a skills evaluator, the trainee can't get any sign-offs.
Yup and yup.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 23, 2014, 04:03:08 PM
So, the new CAPR 52-10 states the following:
Quote from: CAPR 52-10, 2-3
d. Two Deep Leadership. CAP’s general policy is that every cadet activity must be supervised by at least two adult leaders who are in “Approved” status in eServices (see CAPR 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership). CPP training materials explain how that principle is put into practice. There are two exceptions to the “two deep leadership” rule:
(1) Cadet Flying, explained in 2-6a, and
(2) Real-World Operational Missions (not training) conducted under CAPR 60-3, CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions.
How is this policy going to affect ground team training? Do we need to have "two adult leaders who are in “Approved” status" on every ground team training sortie, especially during field training or exercises?
The cadet activity has to be supervised by at least two leaders. This doesn't mean that two adult leaders have to be within line of sight of every cadet at all times. See the proximity rule:
2-3.e. e. Proximity of Supervisor. Because each physical environment, mixture of cadets’ grades and ages, and nature of activity is different, CAP does not set a firm rule regarding the proximity between a group of cadets and their adult leader supervisor. If supervisors do not have direct line of sight contact with cadets, they must nevertheless be aware of where the cadets are and what they are doing, and check up on them periodically.So while it will affect activities, I'd say the impact of the two-deep leadership rule on ground team training will be minimal. Even an all-adult ground team needs to be checked on periodically.
Of course, my understanding may change whenever the new training materials come out.
Quote from: Tim Day on April 24, 2014, 01:45:41 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 23, 2014, 04:03:08 PM
So, the new CAPR 52-10 states the following:
Quote from: CAPR 52-10, 2-3
d. Two Deep Leadership. CAP's general policy is that every cadet activity must be supervised by at least two adult leaders who are in "Approved" status in eServices (see CAPR 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership). CPP training materials explain how that principle is put into practice. There are two exceptions to the "two deep leadership" rule:
(1) Cadet Flying, explained in 2-6a, and
(2) Real-World Operational Missions (not training) conducted under CAPR 60-3, CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions.
How is this policy going to affect ground team training? Do we need to have "two adult leaders who are in "Approved" status" on every ground team training sortie, especially during field training or exercises?
The cadet activity has to be supervised by at least two leaders. This doesn't mean that two adult leaders have to be within line of sight of every cadet at all times. See the proximity rule:
2-3.e. e. Proximity of Supervisor. Because each physical environment, mixture of cadets' grades and ages, and nature of activity is different, CAP does not set a firm rule regarding the proximity between a group of cadets and their adult leader supervisor. If supervisors do not have direct line of sight contact with cadets, they must nevertheless be aware of where the cadets are and what they are doing, and check up on them periodically.
So while it will affect activities, I'd say the impact of the two-deep leadership rule on ground team training will be minimal. Even an all-adult ground team needs to be checked on periodically.
Of course, my understanding may change whenever the new training materials come out.
That point makes sense too. I was actually coming to the same conclusion after re-reading CAPR 52-10, even before seeing this post.
Quote from: Tim Day on April 24, 2014, 01:45:41 PM
The cadet activity has to be supervised by at least two leaders. This doesn't mean that two adult leaders have to be within line of sight of every cadet at all times. See the proximity rule:
2-3.e. e. Proximity of Supervisor. Because each physical environment, mixture of cadets' grades and ages, and nature of activity is different, CAP does not set a firm rule regarding the proximity between a group of cadets and their adult leader supervisor. If supervisors do not have direct line of sight contact with cadets, they must nevertheless be aware of where the cadets are and what they are doing, and check up on them periodically.
So while it will affect activities, I'd say the impact of the two-deep leadership rule on ground team training will be minimal. Even an all-adult ground team needs to be checked on periodically.
Of course, my understanding may change whenever the new training materials come out.
I like this definition. Beats "Sir, we're going out onto the parking lot behind the armory for drill..." followed by 4-5 senior members scrambling all over each other to "supervise."
The cadets are 35 feet away outside an open door. You can see them most of the time if you turn your head.
(Someone had gotten this idea that they needed to have "eyes on" the troops if they went *anywhere*. Like even the drinking fountain in the hallway.. That was getting a tad ridiculous...)
Plus, without 2-3 seniors standing there "supervising," there is no longer the example being set where the cadets just "do what the seniors are doing" and stand there "supervising" in a little knot in the middle of the parking lot.
*sigh*
I'm a little confused here, maybe someone can help me out.
The current 52-16 states,
"Cadets and CPPT. Completion of CPPT is required of all cadets within 6 months following their 18th birthday, or if a promotion is due during that period, prior to the promotion. Cadets become eligible to participate in CPPT upon turning 17 years of age."
The new 52-10 states:
Non-compliance. Cadets who do not complete the training before their 18th birthday are ineligible to earn cadet promotions until they complete the training.
(Notice they removed the wording about becoming eligible at 17 to take it)
Required Participants. All cadets will complete this course as part of their training during Achievement 1 of the Cadet Program. It is delivered via the Achievement 1 character "foundations module" requirement.
So what is National saying? That now ALL cadets have to take CPPT and if they don't do it by their 18th birthday they can no longer participate?
Yes, there is now a "wingman" course
that all cadets will take as part of achievement 1
However, cadets will be required to take cppt basic before their 18th birthday.
I think that it being available when the cadet turns 17 will still be in effect, even though it isn't explicitly written here.
CAPR 52-10
Quote from: Cadet Protection Basic Course3-2.a. Required Participants. All adult members must satisfactorily complete the Cadet Protection Basic Course. New members will complete this course in conjunction with the Level I Orientation Course, but the course is also available as a stand-alone module. To make it easy for cadets to comply with the training requirement, cadets become eligible to participate in the course upon reaching age 17.
Quotec. ...Cadets who do not complete the training before their 18th birthday are ineligible to earn cadet promotions until they complete the training.
Quote3-4. Cadet Protection Wingman Course. This course informs cadets of CAP policies regarding abuse and prepares them to become "effective wingmen" who know how to look out for a fellow cadet's well-being and how to respond to a potentially abusive situation.
a. Required Participants. All cadets will complete this course as part of their training during Achievement 1 of the Cadet Program. It is delivered via the Achievement 1 character "foundations module" requirement.
There's no tick box in there for Achievement 1, yet.
They might as well call that one, "Hurry, check all the boxes" instead of "Curry".
Quote from: Grumpy on April 24, 2014, 11:33:33 PM
I'm a little confused here, maybe someone can help me out.
The current 52-16 states,
"Cadets and CPPT. Completion of CPPT is required of all cadets within 6 months following their 18th birthday, or if a promotion is due during that period, prior to the promotion. Cadets become eligible to participate in CPPT upon turning 17 years of age."
The new 52-10 states:
Non-compliance. Cadets who do not complete the training before their 18th birthday are ineligible to earn cadet promotions until they complete the training.
(Notice they removed the wording about becoming eligible at 17 to take it)
Required Participants. All cadets will complete this course as part of their training during Achievement 1 of the Cadet Program. It is delivered via the Achievement 1 character "foundations module" requirement.
So what is National saying? That now ALL cadets have to take CPPT and if they don't do it by their 18th birthday they can no longer participate?
There are now three levels of training.
Basic Cadet Training all cadets during Achievement 1
Basic Senior Member for all senior members during level I training and cadets after they turn 18.
Advanced Senior training for seniors who work closely with cadets.
And I take it that "The checks in the mail" when it comes the course material.
Absolutely! Just like those PD certificates from Wing. ;)
I'm surprised that in a lot of the hysteria about the new gender requirements in the reg that no one from RMR has chimed in yet. It's been in the Region Supplement for YEARS that overnight activities be chaperoned by at least two seniors, and with at least one senior of each gender (if a co-ed activity).
I can say that it was honestly a bit of an issue at times when I first took over as Deputy Commander for Cadets. I had an all male squadron, and myself and the other CP senior are both female. Getting the 'token male senior' to want to come out and play in the woods with us, or go to drill team competitions was challenging at first. Luckily, there's a bit of a larger population of male seniors to try to bribe to come be a chaperone for a night.
We also started to heavily recruit for male seniors and CSM's to help us out, and we were fortunately very successful (in getting both male and female parents to join). Once parents understand why they are very much needed to join, and the relative ease of being a CSM, and just hit up a few activities a year, I think you'll be surprised at the response.
Mainly though, it just required a bit more effort on our part in the planning phases, and a bit of networking with other seniors and parents to make activities happen. We never had to cancel an activity due to a male senior not being able to participate.
This may already have been discussed in this thread, in which case I apologize in advance.
This point came up in discussion tonight.
Please review the new version of 52-10, 2-3 (g) - Transportation. The words read:
"Transportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one 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, Civil Air Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10)."
The discussion tonight hinged on the piece about private cars. My opinion was that the reg forbids us to transport cadets in parties of less than 3 people unless they are family members, irrespective of who owns the vehicle (unit van or private). The note about insurance simply means that transport to and from CAP activities via own own vehicles has to be covered by our insurance. My reading is that this effectively prevents us from using the van or own cars to bring cadets to a meeting or to take them home afterwards UNLESS the last cadet in the vehicle is a family member OR we always use two Adult Leaders for the transport.
My colleague maintains that he can transport non-family cadets to and from meetings in his own vehicle, and that the 'rule of three' does not apply.
Opinions?
I don't see anything in that text at all prohibiting anything to do with non corporate vehicles.
What I do see is NHQ saying "not our problem", you are on your own. Transport who you want to.
Let's try to break this into two sentences...
QuoteTransportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one cadet).
Adult leaders can not transport non family member cadets, TO FROM OR DURING CAP activity unless the party numbers 3. Period. Dot.
Oh, and by the way, here is a tidbit about what happens when you get in a car crash on the way to or from a meeting (regardless of who is riding in the vehicle) which does not belong in the cadet protection reg, at all.
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, Civil Air Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10).
It doesn't mean you are green light to place yourself in a situation where integrity could be questioned by being one on one with a non member cadet.
You can not do it in a car.
You can not do it at a coffee bar.
You can not do it in a wing conference hotel room.
You can not do it in the squadron's closet of brooms.
Quote from: coudano on April 30, 2014, 12:43:37 AM
Let's try to break this into two sentences...
QuoteTransportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one cadet).
Adult leaders can not transport non family member cadets, TO FROM OR DURING CAP activity unless the party numbers 3. Period. Dot.
Oh, and by the way, here is a tidbit about what happens when you get in a car crash on the way to or from a meeting (regardless of who is riding in the vehicle) which does not belong in the cadet protection reg, at all.
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, Civil Air Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10).
It doesn't mean you are green light to place yourself in a situation where integrity could be questioned by being one on one with a non member cadet.
You can not do it in a car.
You can not do it at a coffee bar.
You can not do it in a wing conference hotel room.
You can not do it in the squadron's closet of brooms.
You cannot violate CPPT
You cannot do it, rule of 3.
Insurance is irrelevant when it comes to Cadet Protection Policy. The reason CAPR 900-5 was quoted is because it addresses the fact that transportation to and from CAP activities in POV is not considered part of the activity and it's conducted at the member's risk. CAPR 77-1 has similar wording:
Quote from: CAPR 77-1Use of POVs for transportation to and from CAP meetings, encampments and other activities is solely at the risk of the individual CAP members and their passengers. CAP assumes no right of control, liability or responsibility for such transportation.
Base on CAPR 77-1 and CAPR 900-5, my interpretation of CAPR 52-10 regarding transportation is more liberal. If Senior Member X, gives a ride to Cadet Y, who happens to be his neighbor and who knows his parents, then both Senior Member X and Cadet Y are doing this outside of CAP, at their own risk. Within a CAP activity and CAP transportation (including POV approved for use IAW CAPR 77-1), this scenario would be prohibited.
I can't agree on this.
The policy makes it clear that the CPPT rules apply at all times.
POV or not does not change the CPPT. NHQ disavows to/from because of accident liability, but you'll still get disciplined if you give a
non-family member a ride by yourself.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2014, 02:27:37 AM
I can't agree on this.
The policy makes it clear that the CPPT rules apply at all times.
POV or not does not change the CPPT. NHQ disavows to/from because of accident liability, but you'll still get disciplined if you give a
non-family member a ride by yourself.
This is correct. In fact, there is a thread about this very section between Ned and me. Reading this section could be confusing for some members. I was hoping they would have rewritten it to make it clearer, but apparently not. The subject of the paragraph starts off about transportation, but ends with liability. Risk refers to the insurance and not cadet protection. I agree with Storm Chaser that the liability section does not belong in the reg about CPPT. If compelled to include it, I think a better transition between the two subjects would have been more appropriate as it will save in some confusion among members.
Accident liability has nothing to do with Cadet Protection Policy, yet is quoted in CAPR 52-10? Why?
I doubt a blanket prohibition could be enforced and/or disciplinary actions taken blindly. CAP cannot control the personal lives of its members. If a close friend asks me to give his kid a ride, I'm not going to refuse just because the kid happens to be a cadet. While CAP has an obligation to protect its members, hence CPPT, it has no legal authority to prevent someone from doing their friend a favor. But if I chose to give my friend's kid a ride, my friend and I assume the risk and potential liability. That's what the regulations says.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2014, 02:54:18 AM
Accident liability has nothing to do with Cadet Protection Policy, yet is quoted in CAPR 52-10? Why?
I doubt a blanket prohibition could be enforced and/or disciplinary actions taken blindly. CAP cannot control the personal lives of its members. If a close friend asks me to give his kid a ride, I'm not going to refuse just because the kid happens to be a cadet. While CAP has an obligation to protect its members, hence CPPT, it has no legal authority to prevent someone from doing their friend a favor. But if I chose to give my friend's kid a ride, my friend and I assume the risk and potential liability. That's what the regulations says.
While true that CAP has no legal authority to prevent someone from doing their friend a favor, but our membership is a privilege and not a right. Therefore, they can terminate it for violation of their rules.
Quote from: CAPR 39-2
1-1. Policy. Membership in Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is a privilege reserved for those individuals who desire to promote the objectives and purposes of CAP and who meet the eligibility requirements outlined herein.
Quote from: CAPR 39-2
1-4. Membership Conditions. All persons agree by applying for initial, or membership renewal, to the following continuous conditions of membership:
a. To obey the decisions of those in authority and to follow and adhere to the appropriate regulations and the Constitution and Bylaws of the Civil Air Patrol.
We must be in different CAPs. Some of the things I read here in CAP Talk are nothing like the positive experience I've had in CAP. Not even the military is like that. Oh, well. Good night.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2014, 02:54:18 AM
Accident liability has nothing to do with Cadet Protection Policy, yet is quoted in CAPR 52-10? Why?
I doubt a blanket prohibition could be enforced and/or disciplinary actions taken blindly. CAP cannot control the personal lives of its members. If a close friend asks me to give his kid a ride, I'm not going to refuse just because the kid happens to be a cadet. While CAP has an obligation to protect its members, hence CPPT, it has no legal authority to prevent someone from doing their friend a favor. But if I chose to give my friend's kid a ride, my friend and I assume the risk and potential liability. That's what the regulations says.
Yes, the regulation about
transportation, which does not speak to, or negate the other rules regarding CPPT. I'd be willing to bet the relevent transport regs will be amended to synch with the CPT ones, but even if they aren't, that doesn't change anything.
People can do mental gymnastics about "personal time", but a ride to a CAP meeting or other activity
is clearly covered by CPPT.
I've had a positive experience in CAP as well, but that doesn't change the fact that those very
rides to a meeting could be considered the grooming behavior discussed in the updated regs.
I've known my best friend since high school. We were cadets in the same squadron. We were best man at each other's wedding. He's enlisted and I'm an officer.
According to the AFI and other applicable regulations, we can't be friends as that's considered fraternization, which is prohibited. Is the Air Force really expecting us to stop being friends?
We were in the same unit once. We maintained a professional relationship on base and in uniform. We avoided anything that could be construed as favoritism or improper behavior. We didn't stop being friends or socializing outside of work. Everyone knew we were friends, but we never gave a reason for anyone to complain or address our friendship. But according to regulations, our friendship and socialization was still considered fraternization.
We can through blanket prohibitions around, but real life is different. Good judgment needs to be exercised. If military commanders and leaders can do that, how come in CAP, a civilian volunteer organization, they can't?
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2014, 06:16:13 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2014, 02:54:18 AM
Accident liability has nothing to do with Cadet Protection Policy, yet is quoted in CAPR 52-10? Why?
I doubt a blanket prohibition could be enforced and/or disciplinary actions taken blindly. CAP cannot control the personal lives of its members. If a close friend asks me to give his kid a ride, I'm not going to refuse just because the kid happens to be a cadet. While CAP has an obligation to protect its members, hence CPPT, it has no legal authority to prevent someone from doing their friend a favor. But if I chose to give my friend's kid a ride, my friend and I assume the risk and potential liability. That's what the regulations says.
Yes, the regulation about transportation, which does not speak to, or negate the other rules regarding CPPT. I'd be willing to bet the relevent transport regs will be amended to synch with the CPT ones, but even if they aren't, that doesn't change anything.
People can do mental gymnastics about "personal time", but a ride to a CAP meeting or other activity
is clearly covered by CPPT.
I've had a positive experience in CAP as well, but that doesn't change the fact that those very
rides to a meeting could be considered the grooming behavior discussed in the updated regs.
Like both of you, I've had a very positive experience in my short time with CAP, and I certainly intend to stay with the organization.
That said, I agree with Eclipse; giving rides to a meeting is clearly covered by CPPT.
This really saddens me as I attended many of my Air Training Corps meetings thanks to a Civilian Instructor who had to drive past our home to get to the HQ; he was kind enough to transport me when my parents could not. Whilst cadet transport isn't a problem for the squadron now it could be in the future, and I can see us having to arrange parent car pools or devising some arrangement whereby we have another Adult Leader (CPP term) to act as 'co-pilot'.
Even if Eclipse and I were both wrong I still wouldn't transport a single cadet of either gender; the general attitude in society towards child protection leads me to think that my innocent and helpful attitude will be misconstrued by somebody, somewhere. If I had to do so in an emergency - last cadet left stranded at the meeting for example - you can be sure I'd be calling the parents / guardians long before the cadet became the last cadet and I'd be sending my written account of the matter to the CC, for my own protection let alone the cadet's protection.
One more instance of where the language in the rewrite is poorly constructed.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2014, 01:00:11 PMAccording to the AFI and other applicable regulations, we can't be friends as that's considered fraternization, which is prohibited. Is the Air Force really expecting us to stop being friends?
This has nothing to do with senior members, and there's no point introducing unrelated issues, they just muddy the discussion.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2014, 01:05:34 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2014, 01:00:11 PMAccording to the AFI and other applicable regulations, we can't be friends as that's considered fraternization, which is prohibited. Is the Air Force really expecting us to stop being friends?
This has nothing to do with senior members, and there's no point introducing unrelated issues, they just muddy the discussion.
Maybe according to you. I see the comparison very relevant. Fortunately, it's not up to you to determine that.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2014, 01:00:11 PM
I've known my best friend since high school. We were cadets in the same squadron. We were best man at each other's wedding. He's enlisted and I'm an officer.
According to the AFI and other applicable regulations, we can't be friends as that's considered fraternization, which is prohibited. Is the Air Force really expecting us to stop being friends?
We were in the same unit once. We maintained a professional relationship on base and in uniform. We avoided anything that could be construed as favoritism or improper behavior. We didn't stop being friends or socializing outside of work. Everyone knew we were friends, but we never gave a reason for anyone to complain or address our friendship. But according to regulations, our friendship and socialization was still considered fraternization.
We can through blanket prohibitions around, but real life is different. Good judgment needs to be exercised. If military commanders and leaders can do that, how come in CAP, a civilian volunteer organization, they can't?
During my own A/F service I was in the same situation; my two closest friends were NCOs and we'd been friends since we were Corporals together on the same base. My Flight Commander at my first posting as a technician was close friends with the E-7 - they had been Apprentices on the same entry. Nobody knew and even when they did, they didn't care because it was clear that neither side took advantage of the situation.
You're right - good judgment and good manners, if I may add that, come into play. Common sense is required, and on both sides. Nobody seriously expects friendships to stop because of changes in career paths.
I think, sadly, that in the arena of CPP, common sense and good manners went to lunch - and didn't come back.
:'(
Since obviously my interpretation of this regulation is different from that of other members, I'm going to ask the question in the CAP Knowledgebase to seek clarification. I could very well be wrong and will have to adapt as required. Regardless, erring on the side of caution or with the most conservative response is appropriate.
I suspect one of two things are going to happen. If KB disagrees with my interpretation, then Eclipse will point out how I was wrong and he knew it all along. But if they agree, then he'll point out how they have no authority to make such determination. I guess we'll see what happens.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2014, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2014, 01:05:34 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2014, 01:00:11 PMAccording to the AFI and other applicable regulations, we can't be friends as that's considered fraternization, which is prohibited. Is the Air Force really expecting us to stop being friends?
This has nothing to do with senior members, and there's no point introducing unrelated issues, they just muddy the discussion.
Maybe according to you. I see the comparison very relevant. Fortunately, it's not up to you to determine that.
How is a relationship between senior members relevent to a discussion about proper behavior involving cadets?
One relationship is prohibited or restricted depending on the circumstance, once isn't even mentioned, anywhere, at
all(frankly to the detriment of CAP< but that is a separate discussion.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2014, 01:16:46 PMI suspect one of two things are going to happen. If KB disagrees with my interpretation, then Eclipse will point out how I was wrong and he knew it all along. But if they agree, then he'll point out how they have no authority to make such determination. I guess we'll see what happens.
Neither of those statements, necessarily, is potentially false. In this case, however, this is not an "interpretation" issue,
it's either in the text or it isn't.
If you choose to make your life more difficult for some reason, so be it, but there's zero rules about senior-member relationships.
You also leaped from "senior driving a cadet" to "senior driving a senior" - not clear why you made that jump.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2014, 01:26:51 PM
If you choose to make your life more difficult for some reason, so be it, but there's zero rules about senior-member relationships.
Actually I don't. But I also don't like bullies and that's your overall attitude in CAP Talk and I suspect, sadly, in CAP. In every discussion we have, you're always "right". Even when countless others disagree. If there's a gray area in the regulation, your interpretation is the only one that can be "correct". Heck, maybe you're right on this particular issue, but it doesn't change what I'm saying about your overall attitude.
And for the record, my comparison wasn't referring to senior member relationships; I was trying to illustrate how blanket rules can't be applied blindly in every situation. But as usual, you failed to see the point I was trying to make and were quick to come up with judgement.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2014, 01:26:51 PM
You also leaped from "senior driving a cadet" to "senior driving a senior" - not clear why you made that jump.
I did not. Reread my post and pay attention to detail.
Agree or disagree, but don't get personal.
Countless? Bully? Please.
Interestingly, in this case, there's literally no gray here, but the risk to leaving it unchallenged (as with many other
similar issues on CT), is that it put an idea in the head of a 1/2-attentioned reader, and before you know it we
have more wive's tales.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2014, 01:43:53 PMAnd for the record, my comparison wasn't referring to senior member relationships; I was trying to illustrate how blanket rules can't be applied blindly in every situation. But as usual, you failed to see the point I was trying to make and were quick to come up with judgement.
No, I got it - you reached for an example that breaks your point because it's apples and oranges.
In this particular case, the "blanket rule" is done on purpose.
Just because you "know" someone doesn't mean you won't abuse them, and a prior relationship, family, friend, or otherwise,
is where a lot of this kind of thing starts. CAP simply wants no part of the risk, for anyone, simply for the sake of the perceived convenience
of one of the parties.
Agree with Eclipse.
If it is not mentioned in the rules, ie the rules do not address senior-to-senior behavior, do not raise the issue of "what-if" since some here will now think "the rules stated... I read it in CAPTalk.net." Or start looking where in the regs it is addressed.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2014, 01:50:06 PM
Agree or disagree, but don't get personal.
I'm not trying to get personal. I made a comparison. You didn't think it was valid. But instead of just saying that, you accused me of "muddy[ing] the discussion".
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2014, 01:50:06 PM
Countless?
Maybe not regarding this issue, but regarding many others... yes.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2014, 01:50:06 PM
Bully? Please.
You push your weight around like if you're the only one with knowledge, the only one with experience, the only one with an opinion that counts. I've read your many posts (thousands of them) and that is what you do. You even do that with other members who clearly are more experienced and qualified than you.
I don't mind disagreeing. I also don't mind debating. But we need to be respectful about it and you're not always so. We only need to do a search here in CAP Talk to confirm what I'm saying.
But you know what, I think we've derailed this discussion enough. I understand what you're saying about this regulation. And it's obvious that you think my interpretation is incorrect. Instead of trying to prove you wrong (which it's not my intention), I want to seek clarification from an authoritative source and, in the mean time, I will err on the side of caution in regards to this policy and ensure that there's always three members in the vehicle. Good day.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on April 30, 2014, 02:08:51 PM
Agree with Eclipse.
If it is not mentioned in the rules, ie the rules do not address senior-to-senior behavior, do not raise the issue of "what-if" since some here will now think "the rules stated... I read it in CAPTalk.net." Or start looking where in the regs it is addressed.
Captain, may I ask where exactly did I address senior-to-senior behavior? Because I'm pretty sure I didn't. Please reread my post and pay close attention. Nowhere did I address what you and Eclipse are saying.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2014, 01:00:11 PM
I've known my best friend since high school. We were cadets in the same squadron. We were best man at each other's wedding. He's enlisted and I'm an officer...
Maybe I am wrong, but this means there is an ongoing relationship. Since you are beyond cadet age, it means you are still doing it as seniors.
If you are not carrying it out now, then use the past tense. As in "He was enlisted and I was an officer."
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2014, 02:23:30 PM
You push your weight around like if you're the only one with knowledge, the only one with experience, the only one with an opinion that counts. I've read your many posts (thousands of them) and that is what you do. You even do that with other members who clearly are more experienced and qualified than you.
Yes - my considerable, non-admin, "same voice as everyone else" "weight".
Make an argument, or don't - but don't get upset when someone disagrees, or doesn't simply accept
misguided interpretations.
My opinion is either accepted or disregarded on merits. Outside what AOR I might have at the time, it's got
no more authority then anyone else's, the KB, and certainly less the the chain of the person or issue
being discussed.
That doesn't mean just because someone else has local authority, that makes their interpretation
"correct", or even a good idea, it just means they have the final say in that AOR.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on April 30, 2014, 02:33:08 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2014, 01:00:11 PM
I've known my best friend since high school. We were cadets in the same squadron. We were best man at each other's wedding. He's enlisted and I'm an officer...
Maybe I am wrong, but this means there is an ongoing relationship. Since you are beyond cadet age, it means you are still doing it as seniors.
If you are not carrying it out now, then use the past tense. As in "He was enlisted and I was an officer."
Sir, you had to keep reading.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2014, 01:00:11 PM
According to the AFI and other applicable regulations, we can't be friends as that's considered fraternization, which is prohibited. Is the Air Force really expecting us to stop being friends? (emphasis mine)
This comparison had nothing to do with CPPT, but with the fact that regulations can't always be applied blindly across the board, as every situation is different. That good judgement, especially on the command side, should be exercised.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2014, 02:38:20 PM
Make an argument, or don't - but don't get upset when someone disagrees, or doesn't simply accept
misguided interpretations. (emphasis mine)
There we go again. Well, I guess that's just Eclipse.
Another thing, why do you bring the Air Force here? This is the CAP and the regulation concerns CAP behavior, not Air Force behavior. This is what causes unecessary confusion and back-and-forth.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2014, 02:40:11 PM
This comparison had nothing to do with CPPT, but with the fact that regulations can't always be applied blindly across the board, as every situation is different. That good judgement, especially on the command side, should be exercised.
So in this case you use an example where you willfully violated a very
clear regulation, one
intended to discourage nepotism and insure good order, because you "knew better", and want to
use that as an argument in favor of command discretion in a matter related to cadet safety?
This is literally the reason we >have< blanket regulations, because people who "know better"
can't simply follow simple rules.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on April 30, 2014, 02:43:31 PM
Another thing, why do you bring the Air Force here? This is the CAP and the regulation concerns CAP behavior, not Air Force behavior.
Seriously? I was making a comparison; nothing more, nothing less. It was my post; if you don't think it's relevant to the discussion, you're certainly entitled to that opinion. But how can you pass judgment when you didn't even read or interpret the post correctly to begin with?
And if you haven't figured it out yet, we are the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary. We wear military style uniforms and grade insignias and ribbons and badges. We have military style titles. And use Air Force money to accomplish many of our missions. So why can't I use an example of my experience in the Air Force?
Did not read it correctly...?
Again, this was a result of you adding things to regulations! If you want to post items that way then you haver to accept there are people that will read them incorrectly. And the cycle goes on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on...
???
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2014, 02:46:00 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2014, 02:40:11 PM
This comparison had nothing to do with CPPT, but with the fact that regulations can't always be applied blindly across the board, as every situation is different. That good judgement, especially on the command side, should be exercised.
So in this case you use an example where you willfully violated a very clear regulation, one
intended to discourage nepotism and insure good order, because you "knew better", and want to
use that as an argument in favor of command discretion in a matter related to cadet safety?
This is literally the reason we >have< blanket regulations, because people who "know better"
can't simply follow simple rules.
Wow! You are something else. My exemplary military record speaks for itself. The intend of the regulation is not to interfere with personal lives or relationships established way before the members joined the military. But what would you know. You're not in the military. You're not a lawyer. Oh, that's right; you're Eclipse. And as usual, you're here to pass judgment on others.
The fact that you didn't get "caught", or "no one cared" doesn't change what you did, or that
it could be used against yo if someone decided they didn't' like you "jib".
Its also irrelevant to this discussion.
If the military has a policy of accepting pre-existing conditions, so be it. CAP doesn't, and
in this case it's a safety issue, so it's a reasonable stance.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on April 30, 2014, 02:55:51 PM
Did not read it correctly...?
Again, this was a result of you adding things to regulations! If you want to post items that way then you haver to accept there are people that will read them incorrectly. And the cycle goes on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on...
???
And yet, you're the one who didn't have attention to detail when you read my post. Furthermore, you questioned the fact that I used an example from my personal experience in the Air Force, but did not address my comment about us being the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2014, 03:00:51 PM
The fact that you didn't get "caught", or "no one cared" doesn't change what you did, or that
it could be used against yo if someone decided they didn't' like you "jib".
Its also irrelevant to this discussion.
So are your comments.
Well, I know where this is going. If we continue arguing over this, the moderators will close this thread. I think we've derailed it enough. This will be my last post to prevent that from happening.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on April 30, 2014, 02:55:51 PM
Did not read it correctly...?
Again, this was a result of you adding things to regulations! If you want to post items that way then you haver to accept there are people that will read them incorrectly. And the cycle goes on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on...
???
Sleep. Eat. Rave. Repeat.?
Quote from: Brit_in_CAP on April 30, 2014, 12:16:59 AM
This may already have been discussed in this thread, in which case I apologize in advance.
This point came up in discussion tonight.
Please review the new version of 52-10, 2-3 (g) - Transportation. The words read:
"Transportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one 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, Civil Air Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10)."
The discussion tonight hinged on the piece about private cars. My opinion was that the reg forbids us to transport cadets in parties of less than 3 people unless they are family members, irrespective of who owns the vehicle (unit van or private). The note about insurance simply means that transport to and from CAP activities via own own vehicles has to be covered by our insurance. My reading is that this effectively prevents us from using the van or own cars to bring cadets to a meeting or to take them home afterwards UNLESS the last cadet in the vehicle is a family member OR we always use two Adult Leaders for the transport.
My colleague maintains that he can transport non-family cadets to and from meetings in his own vehicle, and that the 'rule of three' does not apply.
Opinions?
Your friend is correct
Quote from: Grumpy on April 30, 2014, 03:53:02 PM
Quote from: Brit_in_CAP on April 30, 2014, 12:16:59 AM
This may already have been discussed in this thread, in which case I apologize in advance.
This point came up in discussion tonight.
Please review the new version of 52-10, 2-3 (g) - Transportation. The words read:
"Transportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one 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, Civil Air Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10)."
The discussion tonight hinged on the piece about private cars. My opinion was that the reg forbids us to transport cadets in parties of less than 3 people unless they are family members, irrespective of who owns the vehicle (unit van or private). The note about insurance simply means that transport to and from CAP activities via own own vehicles has to be covered by our insurance. My reading is that this effectively prevents us from using the van or own cars to bring cadets to a meeting or to take them home afterwards UNLESS the last cadet in the vehicle is a family member OR we always use two Adult Leaders for the transport.
My colleague maintains that he can transport non-family cadets to and from meetings in his own vehicle, and that the 'rule of three' does not apply.
Opinions?
Your friend is correct
I'd be quite curious to hear from authoritative sources how this is to be interpreted because of my own situation. I am a Senior Member who does not have another family member as a cadet in the squadron. However, I do provide transportation to a cadet on a regular basis because we live in the same neighborhood and his widowed mother is working during the squadron meeting times and cannot transport her son back and forth. The two families (mine and the cadet's) are very close - and been close for years - and we socialize together several times weekly.
As life would have it, this cadet has recruited some friends to CAP of whom at least one is as active as he is. So, for the purposes of the new CPPT, most of the time I meet the "rule of three" as I have the two cadets in the car with me. However, it does happen at least once a month that one or another of the cadets cannot make it, in which case it is just me and one of the cadets. I suppose that a very strict reading of the regulation means that on those occasions I should not drive the cadet to the meeting and he would have to miss it.
It would be inconceivable to me not to be able to drive him to squadron meetings and having him miss out, but that is maybe what I need to do. Seems silly, but that is why I would want an authoritative interpretation of the rule.
Mac, here is the direct quote from CAPR 900-5. Let's see if we can walk through it. "Member Owned Vehicles. The general rule is that travel to and from CAP meetings, conferences, encampments and other CAP activities in CAP member owned/furnished vehicles is not considered a part of CAP official travel and, therefore, is performed at the risk of the member—not CAP. CAP assumes absolutely no liability for such travel, which is known as the "home-to-work rule." CAP unit commanders may, on a case-by-case basis, specifically authorize the use of a member's vehicle, which will make that use the responsibility of CAP and be covered by CAP's vehicle liability policy, but that prerogative should be exercised only in unusual situations"
1. Member Vehicle (Not CAP)
2. Travel to and from CAP activities (Weekly Meeting) is not covered by CAP insurance so you are on your own insurance.
3. You have not signed-in or signed-out of the activity so you are on your own time.
4. You say you are friends with these members that live in your neighbor hood so you must go to things such as movies, sporting events, etc., with them. Do you worry about CPPT at those times? No, because you're out doing your own thing. This status continues until you sign-in at an activity. Then you're on CAP business you can now worry all you want about CPPT. When the activity is over you sign-out. You're back on your own time and accepting the responsibility again.
Quote from: MacGruff on April 30, 2014, 04:34:48 PM
I'd be quite curious to hear from authoritative sources how this is to be interpreted because of my own situation. I am a Senior Member who does not have another family member as a cadet in the squadron. However, I do provide transportation to a cadet on a regular basis because we live in the same neighborhood and his widowed mother is working during the squadron meeting times and cannot transport her son back and forth. The two families (mine and the cadet's) are very close - and been close for years - and we socialize together several times weekly.
Okay, I think this was accounted for in a previous draft copy. In a previous draft there was a phrase that allowed previous relationships:
QuoteIn 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.
Unfortunately, this was removed.
The previous draft is located at:
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)
I had a similar situation once. Two cadets lived just south of me, and it was a 35 mile trip for me one way to our weekly meeting. I offered to drive them and notified the unit CC, who said "Get permission from their parents in writing and give it to me."
No problem. Parents knew, CC knew, end of story.
Now, today, not so sure if I would make the same offer.
BITD I gave cadets rides all the time - especially to larger activities further away, I've also had them stay over at my home - USAFAUX2004 being one of them (2-up cadets, and with the wife and kids home as well).
That was then, this is now, and it was probably not the best idea then. Expediency and convenience won over sense, though it was never specifically prohibited as such like it is now.
I would never do that today, nor would I try to find a loophole in an unrelated regulation to try and justify an
action or behavior NHQ clearly prohibits.
900-5 has absolutely no relevance to a CPPT discussion. It's only quoted because someone probably thought that indicating 3-up was required
might be tacitly approving to/from in a POV as CAP's responsibility. Lawyers.
CAP makes it clear that to/from is not their responsibility, meaning "we won't pick you up", not "you can do whatever you want in your vehicle".
It also reiterates the liability perspective.
CAP can absolutely limit and define member behavior outside normal activities, and 52-10 contains any number of provisions
which limit or define senior / cadet interactions. Members are free to complain, gnash teeth, and generally ignore the regs at the
peril of their grade, position, and ultimately their membership.
"No one ever cared before" is not justification for continuing a prohibited behavior, nor will it excuse you if someone
>does< make an issue of it.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2014, 08:04:56 PM
BITD I gave cadets rides all the time - especially to larger activities further away, I've also had them stay over at my home - USAFAUX2004 being one of them (2-up cadets, and with the wife and kids home as well).
That was then, this is now, and it was probably not the best idea then. Expediency and convenience won over sense, though it was never specifically prohibited as such like it is now.
I would never do that today, nor would I try to find a loophole in an unrelated regulation to try and justify an
action or behavior NHQ clearly prohibits.
++++ 1000.
My friend (who got me into CAP) and I had spent Thurs-Fri night at Eclipse's house, in the basement. We were both exec staff, 16/almost16, and not a DL between the two of us. It just made sense. Eclipse provided us couch, tv, Band of Brothers, and a meal or two if I remember. He got some shined boots out of it, his kids drew some pictures of the "Army Mikes", and that was that. Mrs. Eclipse was very nice as well.
But today? Today we better call the PD on Eclipse, because that's shaaaaady.I also went to a wing conference by going with two SMs, sleeping on the floor of their room in a sleeping bag, and actually managed to have fun, although I neither show up on the PA for it, nor does it count for my PD credit now. It's an opportunity I would NOT have had a chance for with these new rules. At least not a string budget of a sixteen year old who needs all the money he has for gas money.
Throw in the fact that my parents were in a process to divorce, I wasn't even sure if I could continue in CAP, and looking back, seems I looked for stability wherever I could, which at that stage meant as many CAP activities as possible, whichever way possible.
Quote from: Grumpy on April 30, 2014, 05:09:07 PMYou say you are friends with these members that live in your neighbor hood so you must go to things such as movies, sporting events, etc., with them. Do you worry about CPPT at those times? No, because you're out doing your own thing. This status continues until you sign-in at an activity. Then you're on CAP business you can now worry all you want about CPPT. When the activity is over you sign-out. You're back on your own time and accepting the responsibility again.
Just a brief response:
CPP applies 24/7, 7 days a week. This is not a change. For example, seniors have been prohibited from having a dating relationship with a cadet for many years. Even dating relationships that take place "off duty." (Come to think of it,
especially dating relationships that take place off duty.)
We did have some language that applied to pre-existing relationships, but that was removed from the final draft. It says what it says. When in doubt, my suggestion is to interpret it in a way that maximises cadet protection.
So Squadron Commander dad can't supervise his daughters at an overnight. Got it. Can he drive them to a meeting? Or will mom have to do it?
Quote from: usafaux2004 on April 30, 2014, 09:59:10 PM
So Squadron Commander dad can't supervise his daughters at an overnight.
Come on now, at this point your are just arguing for the sake of arguing. And this one is just silly.
Of course squadron commander Dad can supervise his (presumeably cadet) daughters on the overnight activity. Just like he has always been able to do.
As we all know, a second senior is required for
any overnight, just like always. The only change now is that at least one of the seniors on the overnight will be female. Restated, Dad has the same ability to supervise his daughters on an overnight activity that he had before the change. But I suspect you knew that.
Don't make more out of it than it is. As others have pointed out, many units (and as I understand it, even an entire region) has had this rule in effect for years. It only just became a national standard this week.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on April 30, 2014, 09:59:10 PM
So Squadron Commander dad can't supervise his daughters at an overnight. Got it. Can he drive them to a meeting? Or will mom have to do it?
Not sure if any will agree, but Mom/Dad rules trump CAP rules IMO. I mean, look at it like you said. Squadron Commander has daughters in the program. There is no female SM available for an overnighter. According to CAP, he cannot supervise or act as chaperone if they are the only 2 females going to said activity. Are we really going to discipline the dad for saying "This is a great opportunity. They will be with me the whole time (EW! GROSS, DAD! NOOOO!). They are my daughters and my responsibility."? Can he drive them to a meeting? Of course he can! They're his kids first, CAP cadets second.
We could debate the interpretations all day long and I would be wrong, Eclipse would be wrong, Ned would be wrong, and we'd all be right, all at the same time. It's crazy to think that CAP rules like this would override common sense and parental responsibilities and rights. Use your brain, like Ned said. If in doubt about someone else's kid, err on the side of caution and follow the rules.
He who must attend this activity must follow these Rules of 3, or the other side of a 2B ye see...
Cover your butt. Don't allow yourself to get caught in that position.
That's the thing. If his daughters are the only two...he can't cound as their supervision.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on April 30, 2014, 10:19:13 PM
That's the thing. If his daughters are the only two...he can't cound as their supervision.
See? We could go around and around on this til the sun exploded.
"CPP applies 24/7, 7 days a week. This is not a change. For example, seniors have been prohibited from having a dating relationship with a cadet for many years. Even dating relationships that take place "off duty." (Come to think of it, especially dating relationships that take place off duty.)"
OK then, there goes that idea. I tell my neighbors not to join CAP because I'll have to cut off a 12 year relationship. What happens if after I secure the building after a meeting I walk outside and find my neighbors kid sitting on the curb and there's only to two of us there? Which has happened to me in the past.
I used to be in 4H and we used a board to break up fits between the swine. Guess I'll take the old pig board to meetings and keep it between me and the cadets. ;D
Ned, you cannot simply write this off as "little has changed". The fact that some units may have had this as policy doesn't
change the reality.
Last month, Commander Dad with a daughter in the program could bring another male senior camping and supervise his
Cadet Daughter with no issues.
Now he can't, and saying "little has changed" won't grow a female senior member interested in camping just because
NHQ has decided this is a good idea.
At a minimum there should be allowances in the regulation for situations such as this where the only "other gender"
cadet is a child of the chaperon.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2014, 10:35:16 PM
Ned, you cannot simply write this off as "little has changed". The fact that some units may have had this as policy doesn't
change the reality.
(Obviously for the units that had the rule before, it changes absolutely nothing.)
But for the rest of our units, two seniors were required to supervise an overnight activity before, and two seniors are required to supervise an overnight activity after the update. Now if the activity is coed, the required two seniors have to be coed as well.
QuoteLast month, Commander Dad with a daughter in the program could bring another male senior camping and supervise his
Cadet Daughter with no issues.
True enough. If you go back into our history, the same could be said when we first insisted on two-deep leadership:
"Last month, Commander Dad with a daughter in the program could supervise his cadet daughter with no issues. Now we have to double the resources necessary for an overnight activity. Writing a regulation won't grow an additional senior member just because NHQ has decided this is a good idea."
Standards for cadet protection change and mature over time. I don't (yet) think of myself as old, but commonly did things as a cadet (and young senior) that would be absolutely unacceptable today, but were common place at the time.
This is additional protection for our cadets. Units have nearly six months to meet the challenge of overnight coed supervision.
Eminently doable.
Quote from: Ned on April 30, 2014, 11:23:06 PM
Eminently doable.
Yes, many things are "eminently doable", yet, here we are.
It takes minutes to update a .pdf yet it's what 10+ years on 39-1? Not to mention all the other places
where there are typos, conflicts, and other issues, yet those things which are "eminently doable" aren't done.
I'd really be interested in the top-down plan NHQ is going to rollout to assist in this endeavor.
The membership is shrinking, we have leadership gaps all over the place, and recruiting is an afterthought,
yet somehow units with few to zero female senior members are going to simply "get some" in 6 months?
And it isn't just recruiting female seniors, it's recruiting female seniors who are willing to supervise cadets
on overnight activities that they are presumably disconnected from otherwise.
This is an unfunded mandate with poorly consider consequences. The result is not going to be more females,
it's going to be less overnight activities.
And I have to ask, why isn't there an allowance for adults to chaperon their own children?
Especially if that cadet is the only one requiring a gender-specification in supervision?
All this begs the question: What activity or activities is this primarily aimed at?
Encampment will usually have at least ONE female SM there the whole week.
ES/SAREX? That's a little more iffy. We do have a good female presence at our SAREXes here, but I think GAWG is the exception rather than the rule.
Special activities, such as a NCSA? Doable, but are we going to cancel one if 12 female cadets show up and there are no female SMs? Flight encampment comes to mind...
I'm beginning to wonder if this is aimed at squadron or group level activities. It doesn't make sense if it is an activity where there may be female SMs participating, but then, until I show up, I never really know if there are female SMs at the activity.
Will we have to make a notation on the OPORD that a female SM chaperone is available or not? That would preclude a bunch of female cadets I know, especially one in particular, who are very hardcore GT.
Really, this makes a lot of sense and it doesn't make a lot of sense. We are just going to have to roll with the punches, and for those of us who have already taken this female chaperone idea into consideration, it won't make that much difference in what we are doing. I've noticed that whenever a change like this rolls around, we all grumble and moan and roll our eyes and complain about re-inventing the wheel, but in the end we adapt and continue the mission.
I do agree with Eclipse on this, in part. It is going to cut down on female cadet participation quite a bit. Six months is a good amount of time to implement this, but in the end, if we can't make it work, what then? Are we going to have to actively recruit new female SMs who don't mind going in the woods or supervising cadets, sleeping in FBOs on hard floors? Are we going to have to convince the female membership we already have to suck it up and do it for the greater good? Recruit moms when their daughter wants to join?
This is causing more questions than answers, but the answers are there if we look hard enough. The cadet program is unlike any youth program I've ever encountered. CAP is a completely different animal as well. I wonder if the same rules apply to JROTC.
Eclipse-
All your questions are really well thought out. The simple answer is that management are so focused on other issues that their "projects" almost never reflect the reality of those "on the ground."
My occupation, teacher in the New York City allowed me to see this.
And maybe I will be criticized by reflecting on the following as just being one example and not reflecting the larger force, but I will also post what I saw between two New York City policemen, then one of them and a sergeant.
I was assisting as a CAP member at the New York City Tunnel to Towers Marathon some years ago. The runners registered at Ikea then had to walk to the starting line several blocks away. Crossing a street was controlled by two policemen. They coordinated with each other very nicely. Cars were halted so runners could cross. Then runners were stopped so cars could move. All of a sudden one of the policemen left maybe on lunch. An NYPD sergeant replaced him. The policeman that was left would allow runners to walk then the sergeant let the cars go. Right in the path of the runners crossing. And viceversa...
How can we possibly not have a coed activity? We can't say "male cadets only". The ink wouldn't even be dry before the howling would start. So you've pretty much got to plan on having one of each at every event so that you don't have to cancel, because you sure as heck can't tell the few female cadets, "sorry", you can't come.
The whole point is BS, with capitals throughout. Before "past/family" relations were OK. Then at the last minute someone decided dads can be predatos too! And sure, it's true, but chances are they will have a better opportunity to abuse THEIR kid on THEIR time.
So what in the world? CPP 24/7? Should the SM dad move out? Can't be alone with his kids at home, they are cadets after all. He can't drive them to a meeting, they sure are in a uniform, and thus CAP will be mentioned when he does something horrible. Dad > CAP membership? Don't think so, our legal eagle said when in doubt think cadet protection first! And that's the point isn't it? Screw the fact that a child was violated, at least CAPs name isn't mentioned!
If I have 20 cadets going on a field trip, 2 are my daughters, and we can't go because no SMs of the female persuation volunteered? You think those 18 cadets wont be hating on the girls? Are you going to tell me I can't supervise my own daughters with another SM male? Really?
I know of at least one example locally. SM dad, two daughters in the program. So are we going to shut out all activities for the cadets in his unit? Have him tell his girls NOT to go so the boys can go? This is about as bad as the "girls need to cover up at school, because boys will be distracted".
Melodramatic? Perhaps. But stupid rules, with ZERO thought behind them are just that. Dumb [mess].
Ned, what are the male to female statistics in CAP? How many are CP rated? Anyone look at that at all?
Maybe just do the right thing, take an occasional chance, and accept consequences, if any. If the kid(s) are as safe as it's practical to make 'em, U done good. If the CoC wants to heave you under the bus cause you came up short one female SM on a last minute cancellation, head out anyway, and hope for forgiveness; or concede you might have just done your last CP activity. . .if that's not comfy, toe the line and call off the trip, give mom and dad NHQ's phone number.
Permuations could be entertaining - married couple, one a cadet, one a SM? Now if the SM is female, and one other cadet on the overnight is female. . .no, no, if the male cadet is the only male, can his wife chaperone. . .brain hurt. . .
Quote from: SunDog on May 01, 2014, 03:07:13 AM
Maybe just do the right thing, take an occasional chance, and accept consequences, if any. If the kid(s) are as safe as it's practical to make 'em, U done good. If the CoC wants to heave you under the bus cause you came up short one female SM on a last minute cancellation, head out anyway, and hope for forgiveness; or concede you might have just done your last CP activity. . .if that's not comfy, toe the line and call off the trip, give mom and dad NHQ's phone number.
Permuations could be entertaining - married couple, one a cadet, one a SM? Now if the SM is female, and one other cadet on the overnight is female. . .no, no, if the male cadet is the only male, can his wife chaperone. . .brain hurt. . .
That's already against the rules, independent of CPPT.
Which one do we throw out?
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 01, 2014, 02:46:02 AM
The whole point is BS, with capitals throughout. Before "past/family" relations were OK. Then at the last minute someone decided dads can be predatos too! And sure, it's true, but chances are they will have a better opportunity to abuse THEIR kid on THEIR time.
So what in the world? CPP 24/7? Should the SM dad move out? Can't be alone with his kids at home, they are cadets after all. He can't drive them to a meeting, they sure are in a uniform, and thus CAP will be mentioned when he does something horrible. Dad > CAP membership? Don't think so, our legal eagle said when in doubt think cadet protection first! And that's the point isn't it? Screw the fact that a child was violated, at least CAPs name isn't mentioned!
Capt Hatkevich,
My sense is that you were a little upset when you wrote this. A CAP officer, you have a duty to embrace and follow our Core Values, which includes the CAP Core Value of Respect (to "treat each other with fairness and dignity, and work together as a team.") It does not seem respectful to announce to the world that a regulation developed, staffed, and implemented by our volunteer leaders is "BS with capitals throughout." Nor does publicly carping about the regulation on the internet consistent with "working together as a team."
You are a Leadership Officer, sir. Would it be OK for cadets to go online and announce that your decisions and policies are "BS with capital letters throughout"? (Hint: the answer would be "no.")
I think our Core Values speak for themselves, but let me add a bit of wisdom from our Air Force colleagues. In their "Little Blue Book" (http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070906-003.pdf) that explains their Core Values, there is a bullet under "Service Before Self" that you might find helpful:
Quote from: The USAF Little Blue BookFaith in the system. To lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command what should or should not be done. In other words, to lose faith in the system is to place self before service. Leaders can be very influential in this regard: if a leader resists the temptation to doubt 'the system', then subordinates might follow suit.
This particular regulation was drafted by the corporate and volunteer CP staff officers and then put out not once, but twice for member comment (including vibrant discussions right here on CT.) After each comment period the regulation was redrafted in response to the public comments, as well as input from CAP senior leadership. Literally hundreds of hours went into the research, preparation, drafting, staffing, redrafting, and publication. Like any regulation that touches on controversial areas, a number of compromises and revisions were made. By definition, essentially every time there is a compromise, nobody is going to be totally happy with the outcome. But we can and will make this work. If for no other reason that Gen Carr has signed it, and it is a regulation that we are bound by our oaths of membership to follow.
But even more important than this particular reminder about loyalty, Core Values, and the request that you work with your leadership to support these changes, is the fact that I have a hard time believing that you have even read the regulation you are ranting about.
There is nothing in the regulation that suggests that it is improper for seniors and cadets to contact each other outside of CAP activities. Really - take a look at paragraph 2.7, Interactions Outside CAP Activities. It talks a little bit about social media and electronic communications, but absolutely nothing that even suggests anything as silly as what you were ranting about above.
QuoteIf I have 20 cadets going on a field trip, 2 are my daughters, and we can't go because no SMs of the female persuation volunteered? You think those 18 cadets wont be hating on the girls? Are you going to tell me I can't supervise my own daughters with another SM male? Really?
Sigh. You really need to step away from the keyboard and read the regulation. There is no gender requirements for the senior supervision on a "field trip." Really. Any two seniors in "approved" status will do. The coed requirements only apply to
overnight activities, and even that is not mandatory for another six months. (Although always a good idea.)
QuoteI know of at least one example locally. SM dad, two daughters in the program. So are we going to shut out all activities for the cadets in his unit? Have him tell his girls NOT to go so the boys can go? This is about as bad as the "girls need to cover up at school, because boys will be distracted".
Melodramatic? Perhaps. But stupid rules, with ZERO thought behind them are just that. Dumb [mess].
Oddly enough, not so long ago I was a SM dad with a daughter in the program. No one is suggesting that any cadets be denied an activity merely because of their gender. Indeed, we are saying just the opposite: it is the responsibility of the unit leadership (which includes you, for your squadron) to arrange coed supervision for overnight activities, starting no later than about six months from now.
The only source of melodrama in this situation appears to come from members who have not read the actual regulation, or who chose to act unprofessionally instead of supporting the policy.
All of us have a duty to accept and follow the regulations, even the ones we disagree with.
Thank you for your service with our cadets. You are literally touching the future.
Ned Lee
CP Enthusiast
Sundog: the cadet.
Ned: will read/respond tomorrow.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 03:50:32 AM
This particular regulation was drafted by the corporate and volunteer CP staff officers and then put out not once, but twice for member comment (including vibrant discussions right here on CT.) After each comment period the regulation was redrafted in response to the public comments, as well as input from CAP senior leadership. Literally hundreds of hours went into the research, preparation, drafting, staffing, redrafting, and publication. Like any regulation that touches on controversial areas, a number of compromises and revisions were made. By definition, essentially every time there is a compromise, nobody is going to be totally happy with the outcome. But we can and will make this work. If for no other reason that Gen Carr has signed it, and it is a regulation that we are bound by our oaths of membership to follow.
Dissent and frustration does not equal disobedience, however unfunded / impractical mandates encourage people
(as indicated above) to break the rules, or simply avoid the situation entirely, defeating the intended purpose
or causing unintended consequences - namely, many units will simply stop planning overnight activities, to the detriment of everyone and the potential blame of whichever gender is the minority in a given unit, and
based on scratch-pad demographics, that will generally be the female cadets.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 03:50:32 AM
Oddly enough, not so long ago I was a SM dad with a daughter in the program. No one is suggesting that any cadets be denied an activity merely because of their gender.
Of course not, it just sets up an untenable situation for many units who are barely able to
sustain operations as it is.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 03:50:32 AM
Indeed, we are saying just the opposite: it is the responsibility of the unit leadership (which includes you, for your squadron) to arrange coed supervision for overnight activities, starting no later than about six months from now.
How?
Exactly. "Recruit new female members?"
Should we force every cadet who joins to bring an adult of the same gender as a member?
Trying to turn the legitimate and justified frustration at this situation into a treatise on "salute and execute" makes
a very nice CDI lesson and does not, in any way, fix the situation. It simply deflects the conversation from the real issue.
Do you adhere to the core value of respect by chastising the guy in the very public forum you criticize him for using? Kinda glass housing, aren't you. Or did you have a broader audience in mind?
Not sure you're totally off base or out of line, I admit; but the guy didn't advocate mutiny in a CAP setting. He vented (vice ranted). If you step back a bit, it does walk, talk, and quack like a CYA reg. And it is muddy, as written. Or, say it lacks precision in wording?
The guy may be angry, and stomped too hard, but CAP's "system" brings this down on itself often enough.
Neither - the cadet becomes a senior member.
2-2. Requirements for Initial Membership. All applicants for cadet membership must meet the following prerequisites:
c. Single or married and under age 18.
2-6. Marriage. Married cadets who reach age 18 as well as cadets who marry after age 18, will furnish NHQ/PMM written notification along with a completed CAPF 12 and FD Form 258 fingerprint card at which time they will be transferred automatically to senior membership status.
Who they are married to has no relevance.
Are we talking married before joining or after?
A cadet cannot be married to a senior member.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 03:50:32 AM
Capt Hatkevich,
My sense is that you were a little upset when you wrote this.
Upset? Not quite. But your deflections to other posts got me a bit riled up. Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 03:50:32 AM
A CAP officer, you have a duty to embrace and follow our Core Values, which includes the CAP Core Value of Respect (to "treat each other with fairness and dignity, and work together as a team.") It does not seem respectful to announce to the world that a regulation developed, staffed, and implemented by our volunteer leaders is "BS with capitals throughout." Nor does publicly carping about the regulation on the internet consistent with "working together as a team."
Regulation? No Sir. I like it, most of it. This particular "our of the blue" add on? You betcha! We can talk Core Values all night, but here's one. Where's the Respect for the Integrity of our members? I'm not talking about "why have a CPP at all then?", I'm talking about BLOOD relatives and similar who got the shaft in the final draft. But at least we can all be grateful that CAPTalk is an unofficial outlet, where we exchange thoughts, ideas, debate, argue, and hell, sometimes even bring about changes in attitudes and policies.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 03:50:32 AMYou are a Leadership Officer, sir. Would it be OK for cadets to go online and announce that your decisions and policies are "BS with capital letters throughout"? (Hint: the answer would be "no.")
Currently unassigned actually, but point taken, and disagreed with. They can SAY what they want. Whether there will be consequences, that's a whole other matter.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 03:50:32 AM
I think our Core Values speak for themselves, but let me add a bit of wisdom from our Air Force colleagues. In their "Little Blue Book" (http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070906-003.pdf) that explains their Core Values, there is a bullet under "Service Before Self" that you might find helpful:
Quote from: The USAF Little Blue BookFaith in the system. To lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command what should or should not be done. In other words, to lose faith in the system is to place self before service. Leaders can be very influential in this regard: if a leader resists the temptation to doubt 'the system', then subordinates might follow suit.
Well, I don't think I know better. I disagree, and I admit that I am not the smartest, but we're not the military either, and I think it's ok to admit that sometimes "those above us" make mistakes. They are that much more damaging however, when it involves something that changes less than once per generation. As to influencing subordinates? In November we'll schedule an activity for December. By late November, we'll have a complete sign up, with three female cadets. If we have not yet, we will attempt to secure a SM female to join us. A few days out, we will either cancel due to a SM issue, or carry on with a SM female there. That's all the cadets will know, but of course, SOME of them read CAPTalk, and SOME of them do read the regs, and will know the "secret" of why something was cancelled. I bet in quite a few of such instances, the blame will not be on NHQ, the SMs, or CPP, but squarely on the female cadets. That's teens for you.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 03:50:32 AMThis particular regulation was drafted by the corporate and volunteer CP staff officers and then put out not once, but twice for member comment (including vibrant discussions right here on CT.) After each comment period the regulation was redrafted in response to the public comments, as well as input from CAP senior leadership. Literally hundreds of hours went into the research, preparation, drafting, staffing, redrafting, and publication. Like any regulation that touches on controversial areas, a number of compromises and revisions were made. By definition, essentially every time there is a compromise, nobody is going to be totally happy with the outcome. But we can and will make this work. If for no other reason that Gen Carr has signed it, and it is a regulation that we are bound by our oaths of membership to follow.
Not ONCE did I say that I will NOT, or plan not to follow the regulation. You've got one part right "salute and execute". So far, I'm still enjoying working with cadets, so a CAPF2B doesn't seem like a goal at this time.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 03:50:32 AMBut even more important than this particular reminder about loyalty, Core Values, and the request that you work with your leadership to support these changes, is the fact that I have a hard time believing that you have even read the regulation you are ranting about.
Well that's nice. Because YOU choose to address this from a perspective that I'm an ignorant fool who thinks this applies to ALL CAP Cadet functions, then it must be true. I commented (and yes, read) on both of the revision topics here, as well as on the national website comments. I think you and I even had a discussion on another policy in the very first topic. Which core value is that? Respect or Integrity?
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 03:50:32 AMThere is nothing in the regulation that suggests that it is improper for seniors and cadets to contact each other outside of CAP activities. Really - take a look at paragraph 2.7, Interactions Outside CAP Activities. It talks a little bit about social media and electronic communications, but absolutely nothing that even suggests anything as silly as what you were ranting about above.
Ranting? May look that way. If the examples seemed absurd, that's because they were meant to be. If you missed that, next time I'll hyperbole harder.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 03:50:32 AMSigh. You really need to step away from the keyboard and read the regulation. There is no gender requirements for the senior supervision on a "field trip." Really. Any two seniors in "approved" status will do. The coed requirements only apply to overnight activities, and even that is not mandatory for another six months. (Although always a good idea.)
Sigh. I really wish you'd stop lawyering, and respond to points as they are written, in the context presented. Maybe it's my grasp of English (am I a non-native speaker after all), but I wasn't aware that FIELD trips were synonymous with DAY trips. From here on out, I shall refer to them as multi-day field trips. For clarity, of course.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 03:50:32 AMOddly enough, not so long ago I was a SM dad with a daughter in the program. No one is suggesting that any cadets be denied an activity merely because of their gender.
Oh yes they are. It's not meant that way (I hope), but the reality vs. "I have a great idea" don't line up on this one.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 03:50:32 AM
Indeed, we are saying just the opposite: it is the responsibility of the unit leadership (which includes you, for your squadron) to arrange coed supervision for overnight activities, starting no later than about six months from now.
I'm all good with yet another mandate from above. But since you're our stats guy with NHQ access, I'm sure you can tell us how many Female SMs vs Male SMs there are in CAP. Perhaps NHQ would be nice enough to give us a plan to recruit more? Because without that, this is a sham.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 03:50:32 AMThe only source of melodrama in this situation appears to come from members who have not read the actual regulation, or who chose to act unprofessionally instead of supporting the policy.
I've read the reg. I support it. I disagree with a subpoint. Shoot me. I'm sorry I can clearly see the issue down the road that "those who should know better/more/smarter" didn't.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 03:50:32 AMAll of us have a duty to accept and follow the regulations, even the ones we disagree with.
Sure do. Accept? Check. Follow? Check. Support. Hell no.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 03:50:32 AMThank you for your service with our cadets. You are literally touching the future.
You know, this bugs me every time. I have a very strong suspicion, based on reading dozens of posts ending in similar way from you, that this is akin to a "Well, G-d Bless You" from a religious person when you tell them you don't believe. Typically their voice tells you they mean quite the opposite.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 03:50:32 AMNed Lee
CP Enthusiast
Feel free to try it out again on the ground floor. I think you'll find it's a bit different when you're the CDC with MAYBE one more person helping you run a program with about 10-12 cadets.
Quote from: SarDragon on May 01, 2014, 04:41:46 AM
Neither - the cadet becomes a senior member.
2-2. Requirements for Initial Membership. All applicants for cadet membership must meet the following prerequisites:
c. Single or married and under age 18.
2-6. Marriage. Married cadets who reach age 18 as well as cadets who marry after age 18, will furnish NHQ/PMM written notification along with a completed CAPF 12 and FD Form 258 fingerprint card at which time they will be transferred automatically to senior membership status.
Who they are married to has no relevance.
True, but point stands, the "status change" falls on the cadet. "Up or out", quite literally.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2014, 11:35:27 PM
This is an unfunded mandate with poorly consider consequences. The result is not going to be more females, it's going to be less overnight activities.
You know, a part of me is wondering if that's actually the
intent of this brouhaha...
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 03:50:32 AM
A CAP officer, you have a duty to embrace and follow our Core Values, which includes the CAP Core Value of Respect (to "treat each other with fairness and dignity, and work together as a team.")
Playing the Core Values card? Poor form, that.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 01, 2014, 05:20:36 AM
Upset? Not quite. But your deflections to other posts got me a bit riled up.
OK, you were not upset. Just "riled up."
QuoteI'm talking about BLOOD relatives and similar who got the shaft in the final draft.
Help me to understand what you mean here. As near as I can tell, there was
no change in how CAP family members deal with each other, with the single exception of overnight activities. We went from mandatory two-deep to mandatory two-deep coed (which is waived for six months to allow units to prepare.) Maybe it is that hyperbole you are so fond of, but it is hard for me to imagine how that single change amounts to giving "BLOOD relatives the shaft."
What am I missing?
QuoteWell, I don't think I know better. I disagree, [ . . .]
I kinda figured out that you disagree. And as far as that goes, there is no problem with disagreement and critique. Really, no one has an issue with something like "The regulation says
X, but I think that is a mistake. It should really say
Y, because of Reason 1, Reason 2, and Reason 3."
But that's a far cry from posting while "riled up" and calling the regulation (or any part of it) "BS, with capitals throughout," or a "sham," or talking about some members "getting the shaft." Or posting (to use your description) "absurd" hypotheticals and hyperbole.
QuoteI'm sure you can tell us how many Female SMs vs Male SMs there are in CAP.
Last time I looked, it was something like 80 / 20 male for both seniors and cadets.
QuoteAccept? Check. Follow? Check. Support. Hell no.
Here's another point where we apparently differ. I believe that every CAP officer has a duty to publicly support the regulations and policies of the corporation. That doesn't mean that you can't privately express your disagreement to your colleague or superiors, or even publicly suggest improvements to the regulation. And that's not just a military thing, BTW, it goes for pretty much any organization in which you hold a responsible position. I've worked for several government agencies and held some nice jobs. But I never enjoyed the privileged of publicly disparaging the laws, rules, or policies of the agencies.
CT is certainly unofficial, but it is very public. There are a lot of non-members reading this. I can't believe that you would stand in front of the unit formation and say "parts of the regulation are BS and a sham because blood relatives got shafted." And if you can't say it publicly in one context, then you probably shouldn't be phrasing it that way here, either.
Again, I'm not suggesting that all of us have to agree with each and every part of every regulation. I know I sure don't. But I offer my more colorful and vehement disagreements and criticisms (including any hyperbole and absurd hypotheticals) directly to my bosses, where it potentially could do some good, and not in public where it can do harm.
QuoteFeel free to try it out again on the ground floor. I think you'll find it's a bit different when you're the CDC with MAYBE one more person helping you run a program with about 10-12 cadets. [/font]
There's no reason you should know, of course, but my first 30 years of membership were at the squadron level, including multiple tours as a CDC, Leadership Officer, Testing Officer, Logistics, etc., etc. Some units were larger than others, but none was so large that we didn't need more seniors to help administer the program. I am comfortable I have some sense of what it is like in the trenches on Tuesday night.
And as an aside to Bob:
Quote from: EclipseHow?
Exactly.
"Recruit new female members?"
That would probably be best, of course. But other perfectly sound alternatives exist including coordinating with other units in the group / area to "borrow" an appropriately-gendered senior for a particular activity.
When you were a group commander, I'll bet you had your CP crew try to coordinate activities between units to try to maximize resources. Nothing really new here.
Most units have overnight activities about once a quarter.
Some of you make it sound like recruiting female senior members is some sort of impossible task. No recruiting is easy, but there are already thousands of competent female seniors aboard. If you think there has to be some sort of specialized recruiting method for attracting women to the program, you might start by asking our current terrific females about what attracted and retained them. I'll bet they'd be willing to share.
USAF-
Some of us support your feelings and feel the same way even if unable to make their arguments. I hope you continue to support the program despite these feelings, and continue to be a member.
I too am a non-native English speaker and have had problems making a persuassive speech, even in my own Native language, Spanish.
Based on at least local demographics, 20% is probably mostly cadets. How about SM only?
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 06:50:34 AM
Some of you make it sound like recruiting female senior members is some sort of impossible task.
So...we're just going to fall back to the pamphlets and deny the reality of the demographics and retention situation?
We have a very serious retention issue in CAP, and a corresponding apathy about recruiting - zero command imperative
to change that, and the organization is demonstrably shrinking on a nice, steady basis, and we're going to suggest
the fix for an unnecessary, unfunded mandate is...
"recruit new (female) members?"
That sentence denies the reality of female interest in Aerospace, the military, doing much of anything
that doesn't involve a Timeline (kids in general), not to mention the incredible range of activities
available to, and expected of, people today.
The military is shrinking.
The GA community is shrinking.
Volunteerism in the US is shrinking.
Parents are working (hopefully) longer hours for less money then ever before.
None of this seems to be within the scope of CAP's reality, because in my 15 years there
has never been a single concerted, nationwide recruiting effort, it's all scatter-shot and local.
"best kept secret of the USAF", but now, "because", we're going to start recruiting new members, especially
female ones?
I again ask,
how,
exactly?
Any competent manager or strategic planner provides the tools and resources for his people to accomplish whatever
goals or mandates are expected. Simply saying "you shall", with no change to status quo, just adds one more
unmet goal to the growing pile.
"This months number is 42..."
"We didn't make our number last month chief..."
"Ok, well then next month's numbers will be doubled..."
"Alrighty then..."
No plan, no support, no simple ideas how to accomplish the task, just make like Nike.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 01, 2014, 01:32:14 PM
"This months number is 42..."
"We didn't make our number last month chief..."
"Ok, well then next month's numbers will be doubled..."
"Alrighty then..."
No plan, no support, no simple ideas how to accomplish the task, just make like Nike.
(http://stjent.pinnaclecart.com/images/products/preview/80820.jpg)
Quote from: Eclipse on May 01, 2014, 01:32:14 PM
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 06:50:34 AM
Some of you make it sound like recruiting female senior members is some sort of impossible task.
So...we're just going to fall back to the pamphlets and deny the reality of the demographics and retention situation?
I again ask, how, exactly?
""Alrighty then..."
No plan, no support, no simple ideas how to accomplish the task, just make like Nike.
I admit that a "just do it" attitude sounds like my parents telling me to do something "just because".
I guess rules from above can be perceived as arbitrary and without reason, because we are not directly involved in the process. This is common in large organizations, especially in those with a strict CoC, and with a leadership structure which does not seem to activly garner constant bottom top input on most policy issues.
In any event, our "core values" do need to be our guide in how we act in CAP. All of us need to abide by it's tennants. It's not something we just "pull out" when explaining our actions.
We should embrace the concept of a diverse CAP. We should concentrate recruiting on all that can commit to our principles of youth development. Is there a reason why our success in retaining women is only 25% as that of men? Is there really such a need for guidence on recruiting/retaining more women in CAP? If so, we have a committee which is tasked to provide the guidence needed.
I understand our current shortfalls on the numbers. I also understand the need to change things. We also have thousands of experienced members who can make this happen. Maybe NHQ is implying we can do the job without the help?? Just MHO...
Recruiting females for military service is tough; this I know, having spent quite a while in the business. The bigger culture is a big barrier, and mom and dad are amoung the biggest "influencers" (read "blockers"). It's not as tough as before, but still real, real tough. I know we aren't military, but we sure look that way to the casual, outside observor.
If CAP recruited and retained females at 25% success rate, we'd beat everyone in DoD most years, and run neck-and-neck with Coast Guard recruiting. 25% is a tough bar to reach. NHQ would have to spend some money. A lot of money.
Some years ago I had a conversation with a co-worker, and was my usual smooth self. She was adamant her daughter should not serve, that it wasn't "right". It got too long, too loud, and ended up with me saying her daughter could fill a body-bag just as well as my son. A few years later he nearly did - oddly enough, her daughter enlisted, and then blew out of Army basic when her dad begged her to quit, within days of completion.
My organization had good success recruiting female athletes, high school and college age. They maintain the self-confidence other young women start to loose in high school. They aren't shocked by the physical demands, or 'tough' attitudes they see in boot camp or OCS. They've had a chance to learn the diffrence between soreness and real pain, fatigue and exhaustion, etc.
Fisrt Law of Admirals and Generals: "Nothing is impossible if you ain't gotta do it..."
I think that my lingering concern with the way this was handled is that we, as an organization should know better. Our own leadership curriculum, likely reviewed and approved by good CP folks like Lt Col Lee, addresses how to effect organizational change.
Both the way these uncoordinated changes were rolled out and the attitude that suddenly it's our duty to comply without stating the unintended consequences on our mission are completely at odds with the content of that curriculum.
It'd help if NHQ could take the time to explain things like the mandatory (no exceptions) coed supervision rule. That principle isn't in the source material, at least that I could find. In fact, a fixation on working with youth of only one gender is a potential negative flag, according the the Center for Disease Control reference document. Still we have no explanation of the rationale for adding this in, nor do we have an explanation regarding why a dad can't supervise his daughter on a CAP activity without the presence of a female senior member.
Mostly what I've read in the references encourages lowering the barriers to positive activities, and if that means two males or two females supervising a a coed overnight activity (with parent and supervisory awareness and approval) then it's encouraged - because positive activities are the best long term counter to abuse.
Bob,
Why do you think recruiting women is some mysterious exotic skill that only NHQ can help you with?
When you need mission pilots, you go out and recruit mission pilots. Need a chaplain? Go out and get a chaplain. Both requirements have existed for decades and yet we have managed to survive without specialized recruitment programs run out of NHQ.
But since you asked about NHQ resources to help in recruiting, you'll be pleased to know that there are a bunch:
Start on the Recruiting Page (http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/member_services/recruiting/) for the Recruiters Online Tool Kit, including strategies, tips, FAQs, and pointers for successful recruiting.
Need recruiting materials, like brochures, posters, photos, fact sheets, recruiting powerpoints, and videos? NHQ has an excellent Recruiting Materials (http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/recruiting_and_retention/recruiting-material/) page where you can order or download the materials needed for your recruiting efforts.
While technically not a recruiting publication, The Cadet Great Start Program (http://capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/cadet_great_start.cfm) has a lot of great ideas and materials specific to cadet units.
Of course, you don't have to restrict yourself to NHQ materials. High quality member videos and photos are easily found on YouTube and Instagram. Heck, this very forum has a lot of terrific ideas and description of successful recruiting efforts. All it takes is a few minutes searching.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 01, 2014, 01:32:14 PM
the fix for an unnecessary, unfunded mandate is...
"recruit new (female) members?"
That sentence denies the reality of female interest in Aerospace, the military, doing much of anything
that doesn't involve a Timeline (kids in general), not to mention the incredible range of activities
available to, and expected of, people today.
I don't think this kind of attitude ("Women aren't as interested in technical things like aerospace or in military things") is very helpful, and somewhat insulting to women.
Sure, statistically most Americans -- regardless of gender -- are not interested in Aerospace and/or the military. And it may be for exactly the reason you mentioned -- the incredible range of activities expected of people today.
But to suggest that someone's chromosonal makeup automatically makes them less interested in technical things or the military starts to sound a little . . . . sexist.
QuoteAny competent manager or strategic planner provides the tools and resources for his people to accomplish whatever goals or mandates are expected. Simply saying "you shall", with no change to status quo, just adds one more unmet goal to the growing pile.
Laying aside the high quality tools and resources NHQ
actually does provide to the recruiting effort for just a moment, the task of "recruiting sufficient seniors to adequately supervise and run the cadet program" remains unchanged.
You don't need to increase your CP senior numbers by a single digit. (Although all of us probably should.)
You just need to make sure there is coed supervision on overnight activities.
No more, no less.
For CAP, recruiting women is no different than recruiting men. Suggesting that women have "difficult to figure out" special requirements unfathomable by local units begins to sound like that bunch of junior high school boys at their first school dance staring at the young ladies across the dance floor. They seem different and mysterious, but it turns out they want exactly what everybody else wants - a challenge, meaningful work, and a positive environment.
I found a song that might help:
(With apologies to Lerner and Loewe.)
"How can I recruit woman?
There's a way," said the wise old man,
"A way known to successful units
Since the whole rigmarole began."
"Do I flatter her?" I begged him answer.
"Do I threaten or cajole or plead?
Do I brood or play the gay romancer?"
Said he, smiling: "No indeed.
How do you recruit woman?
Mark me well, I will tell you, sir:
The way to recruit a woman
Is to ask her...simply ask her...
Then respect her, and value her time."
Great song, Ned. Thanks for sharing.
The CAP Chaplain Corps has several female Character Development Instructors and Chaplains. Wonder where they came from...could it be called, "recruitment"?
Quote from: Tim Day on May 01, 2014, 05:28:57 PM
I think that my lingering concern with the way this was handled is that we, as an organization should know better. Our own leadership curriculum, likely reviewed and approved by good CP folks like Lt Col Lee, addresses how to effect organizational change.
Both the way these uncoordinated changes were rolled out and the attitude that suddenly it's our duty to comply without stating the unintended consequences on our mission are completely at odds with the content of that curriculum.
It'd help if NHQ could take the time to explain things like the mandatory (no exceptions) coed supervision rule. That principle isn't in the source material, at least that I could find. In fact, a fixation on working with youth of only one gender is a potential negative flag, according the the Center for Disease Control reference document. Still we have no explanation of the rationale for adding this in, nor do we have an explanation regarding why a dad can't supervise his daughter on a CAP activity without the presence of a female senior member.
Mostly what I've read in the references encourages lowering the barriers to positive activities, and if that means two males or two females supervising a a coed overnight activity (with parent and supervisory awareness and approval) then it's encouraged - because positive activities are the best long term counter to abuse.
While I may not agree with everything in your post you bring a reasoned and well thought out post and is a welcome breath of fresh air to this thread. Instead of demanding and mean spirited bullying from the usual suspects who feel NHQ should have them on speed dial.
I am a teacher in New York City. I hear girls and women all the time. In general they are not interested in aviation or camping. Girls, maybe but not their mothers, which are the ones we need. So that is another reason I understand what Eclipse says.
Ned, please spend one month in our shoes. It sounds you have never done this kind of thing. Talking to parents, specially women, to join CAP.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on May 01, 2014, 06:11:41 PM
I am a teacher in New York City. I hear girls and women all the time. In general they are not interested in aviation or camping. Girls, maybe but not their mothers, which are the ones we need. So that is another reason I understand what Eclipse says.
Ned, please spend one month in our shoes. It sounds you have never done this kind of thing. Talking to parents, specially women, to join CAP.
I think if you do some research you will find Ned has BTDT several times over.
Be that as it may, it is what he is saying. He is ignoring the experience of a lot of us, as if our experience does not count. I have worked as Deputy Commander of cadet squadrons as well as other positions for about 13 or 14 years. I do not know how long Eclipse has, but I am sure he has more than I have. He has been in more positions than I. And Ned is blowing all that as if it does not matter.
All-
At the time I do not have access as the computer I am using has Adobe disabled. So I cannot read and PDF publication. Tomorrow will be another story, thou. Short question, can patron members supervise cadets on overnights?
It does not matter....because it has got to be done.
Bottom line.....stop belly aching....and start recruiting.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 06:00:49 PM
For CAP, recruiting women is no different than recruiting men.
With respect, that's just not the case. I worked in this arena for seven years, and while it can be done, it is
hard to do. It is
expensive, and it is
diffrent.
The motivators for females are diffrent, the influencers are far more important, and the wash-out and retention rates are worse. Brochures and the general purpose recruiting stuff now in-house will not move the needle much, if at all. For cadets, we'd need to get to mom and dad
early, and I mean
before the candidate brings up the topic at home. Mom/dad see that uniform, camo or blues, in a brochure, the door slams. "Not my daughter!"
The single best predictor of military service is having a close influencer who served - usually dad, or mom, a sibling, coach, uncle/aunt. Those influencers are, overwhlemingly, males. Men can recruit females, yes. But they can't do it the same way males are recruited.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 06:00:49 PM
Bob,
Why do you think recruiting women is some mysterious exotic skill that only NHQ can help you with?
When you need mission pilots, you go out and recruit mission pilots. Need a chaplain? Go out and get a chaplain. Both requirements have existed for decades and yet we have managed to survive without specialized recruitment programs run out of NHQ.
We do, REALLY? The CAP I am in has been steadily shrinking for a decade.
Just tell where to get these people and I'll make some calls, otherwise, we'd all be better off accepting reality and working
within it then trying to insinuate that an unfunded, unnecessary mandate is somehow going to work itself out "because".
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 06:00:49 PM
You just need to make sure there is coed supervision on overnight activities.
No more, no less.
Or simply not have overnight activities. Mission accomplished.
Lord, the knee-jerk reaction of those that do not have any arguments? Shut up???
:D
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on May 01, 2014, 06:24:05 PM
Be that as it may, it is what he is saying. He is ignoring the experience of a lot of us, as if our experience does not count. I have worked as Deputy Commander of cadet squadrons as well as other positions for about 13 or 14 years. I do not know how long Eclipse has, but I am sure he has more than I have. He has been in more positions than I. And Ned is blowing all that as if it does not matter.
He is not ignoring anyone. If that were the case he wouldn't be taking the time to respond to the posts. Also, did it dawn on you that he may not have the power to change any of this? He might even agree with you. He is a professional. Instead you choose to blame him for everything you don't like with the CPP. Next time cut out the middle man and send your comments to MG Carr.
So now we cannot express our views here? Why are you so like a bully?
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 06:00:49 PM
For CAP, recruiting women is no different than recruiting men.
This needs to stand on its own.
This is either disingenuous, or woefully misinformed about the state of diversity in the military, Aerospace, GA,
and society as a whole.
We have a verifiable shrinking membership, a churn that would kill most similar organizations,
and a total female membership which is at or less then 20% total (after you remove 000, and patrons).
and you say that recruiting females is no different then recruiting males?
How many female national commanders have we had? Oh yes. One.
In 70+ years.
I am honestly surprised you would think an assertion like that would actually fly. Reality vehemently disagrees.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 01, 2014, 06:43:55 PM
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 06:00:49 PM
Bob,
Why do you think recruiting women is some mysterious exotic skill that only NHQ can help you with?
When you need mission pilots, you go out and recruit mission pilots. Need a chaplain? Go out and get a chaplain. Both requirements have existed for decades and yet we have managed to survive without specialized recruitment programs run out of NHQ.
We do, REALLY? The CAP I am in has been steadily shrinking for a decade.
Just tell where to get these people and I'll make some calls, otherwise, we'd all be better off accepting reality and working
within it then trying to insinuate that an unfunded, unnecessary mandate is somehow going to work itself out "because".
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 06:00:49 PM
You just need to make sure there is coed supervision on overnight activities.
No more, no less.
Or simply not have overnight activities. Mission accomplished.
Talk about passive aggressive attitude!
Quote from: PA Guy on May 01, 2014, 06:53:06 PM
Talk about passive aggressive attitude!
That is the reality of an unfunded mandate in a volunteer organization.
Accept it or don't, but that won't change the fact of the matter.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 06:00:49 PM
When you need mission pilots, you go out and recruit mission pilots. Need a chaplain? Go out and get a chaplain. Both requirements have existed for decades and yet we have managed to survive without specialized recruitment programs run out of NHQ.
Ned, mission pilots come to us because we offer them something they want (to fly). Chaplains are motivated to serve others and while it's ideal to have a chaplain, we also have mitigating policies that allow us to designated Character Development Instructors. If no Chaplain or CDI is available, the Commander can facilitate CD.
There is no such mitigation for the coed adult supervision requirement. What I think would be helpful here is to help members understand why coed adult supervision is so critical to abuse prevention that we will not hold overnight activities without it.
Okay....here is a hint. Parents.......when child x comes to your meeting you have both the child and the parent there. You make your pitch and convince them to join.
Sure it's not going to be easy.
But it has got to be done.
It is that simple.
End of message.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on May 01, 2014, 06:49:35 PM
So now we cannot express our views here? Why are you so like a bully?
Who said anything about not being able to express your view here? Your reply doesn't make any sense to me. Since you are so unhappy with Ned's responses I offered you an alternative person to contact. How is that being a bully? Disagreeing with you does not a bully make.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 01, 2014, 07:11:11 PM
Okay....here is a hint. Parents.......when child x comes to your meeting you have both the child and the parent there. You make your pitch and convince them to join.
Sure it's not going to be easy.
But it has got to be done.
It is that simple.
End of message.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on May 01, 2014, 06:11:41 PM
I am a teacher in New York City. I hear girls and women all the time. In general they are not interested in aviation or camping.
Perhaps ask the girl scouts how they are able to get girls interested in camping? They have been doing that for a while now.
Oh and by the way, Ned has walked in plenty of shoes for plenty of years in this organization. So he is not just some joe blow off the street person. Just a hint.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 01, 2014, 07:11:11 PM
Okay....here is a hint. Parents.......when child x comes to your meeting you have both the child and the parent there. You make your pitch and convince them to join.
Sure it's not going to be easy.
But it has got to be done.
It is that simple.
End of message.
MSgt, if it were simple, perhaps your squadron would have a lot of female SM. That fact that you don't (as you've previously stated) indicates you are not yet qualified to assert that it's simple.
Besides, the issue isn't recruiting female SM. The main issue is increased scheduling complexity (cost) without empirical evidence or supporting arguments that the coed requirement will increase the safety of cadets (value). This is as true for units that have predominantly female SM involved in their squadron's CP as it is for units like yours that have not been able to recruit sufficient female SM to provide coed supervision.
Let me take this discussion in another direction.
Ned (and others) say, "recruit more women," and point to the cadet sponsor membership as a way to do so. My biggest concern with the CSM option is that we (CAP) are asking non-involved parents to pay US to help run OUR program. I suspect that CSM recruitment might creep upwards if we didn't make parents pay for the privilege of helping CAP.
Thoughts? Do other organizations do this as well? I'd really like to know.
Quote from: LSThiker on May 01, 2014, 07:16:49 PM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on May 01, 2014, 06:11:41 PM
I am a teacher in New York City. I hear girls and women all the time. In general they are not interested in aviation or camping.
Perhaps ask the girl scouts how they are able to get girls interested in camping? They have been doing that for a while now.
First, the majority of CAP overnights are not necessarily "camping".
Second, irrelevant, since the GIRL scouts, just like the BOY scouts do not have a gender issue in regards to supervision, since
you know their NAME defines their membership, and as we've already shown, the Ventures can opt out of coed units.
Relevant examples will help the discussion more then irrelevant examples that appear on the surface to
look like CAP but in fact are >not<.
Based on comments and verbiage from the CPT white papers, our borrowing too heavily from the BSA model, without
understanding the nuances and differences in the organization, is probably why we are here to begin with.
Honestly, the cheerleading has to stop.
Will I do my best? Of course. Can I voice my issues? I'm pretty sure I can. If NHQ doesn't like that, they can block my renewal. I'm sure that will benefit the cadets I work with, at my unit, and at encampment. I get enough complaining from my wife to push the needle in the "why do I bother" turf without the cheerleaders. MSgt Harris is a product of the military - salute and execute. Great. It works for them. We're a volunteer organization. Things get tough, loose their rewarding feeling, and members leave. We don't have contracts, just a lesser of $60 bucks on the line year after year.
I'm quite honestly disappointed in Ned. Talk about getting emotional. Eclipse pointed out that as a matter of fact women are less inclined for aviation, military, roughing it in the woods, and gets labeled a sexist? Really? We're all products of our culture. I've know cadets from Alabama who can't wear pants. Their faith prohibits it from the ladies. Didn't hear anyone bashing their culture because of it, though I'm sure most of us disagree with it. War has been for a long time, in the majority of cultures a male endevour. Flight has been, for the majority of its history. Forget the Earhart's of the world, they were the exception not the rule. Women couldn't even vote in this country until a century ago! Of all our named awards achievements...by my quick recollection, 13, only 2 are named for women! That's our culture. Is it right? Depends. Do I think women are less capable? Nope, my wife reminds me of that every day. Less interested? Definitely. I've had this talk with my wife. We have things she can help with, at the unit, at an encampment. She can't commit to overnight, because if I'm there, who is taking care of the dogs and other pets we have? Eventually, who's taking care of the kids when I'm gone doing CAP stuff? But you know what else? She thinks our uniforms suck. She wouldn't join because she would need to wear one. Double up for a polo/grey pants. She's simply not interested in what we have to offer. But on multiple occasions she's offered to help in plain clothes, which of course isn't an option. So there you have it. She could be testing officer, freeing me up to do "cadeting" stuff. She could be a finance officer. She could be a PAO at encampment. But she won't. Because while those things get her interested, she doesn't care for the uniforms. So most will say CAP isn't for her. I'd agree. But she's representative of the majority of women her age and lifestyle. And she lives with a member for over 5 years!
Quote from: NC Hokie on May 01, 2014, 07:24:23 PM
Let me take this discussion in another direction.
Ned (and others) say, "recruit more women," and point to the cadet sponsor membership as a way to do so. My biggest concern with the CSM option is that we (CAP) are asking non-involved parents to pay US to help run OUR program. I suspect that CSM recruitment might creep upwards if we didn't make parents pay for the privilege of helping CAP.
Thoughts? Do other organizations do this as well? I'd really like to know.
A very bad idea. The BSA does this - you have to go through specific training, including some camping, to be a
scout leader, etc. but anyone who watched the video can go as a chaperon on campouts and other activities.
We already have enough issues with poorly informed full members, the last thing we need are a cadre of
totally uninformed, and disinvested members telling our cadets "what for".
Anyone who believes CSMs are the savior here really has no idea.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 01, 2014, 07:30:39 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on May 01, 2014, 07:16:49 PM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on May 01, 2014, 06:11:41 PM
I am a teacher in New York City. I hear girls and women all the time. In general they are not interested in aviation or camping.
Perhaps ask the girl scouts how they are able to get girls interested in camping? They have been doing that for a while now.
First, the majority of CAP overnights are not necessarily "camping".
I did not imply they were. He stated camping, thus camping I used.
QuoteSecond, irrelevant, since the GIRL scouts, just like the BOY scouts do not have a gender issue in regards to supervision, since
you know their NAME defines their membership, and as we've already shown, the Ventures can opt out of coed units.
Nor did I imply that either. He said interested in camping. So obviously, the girl scouts are able to get girls interested in camping as he said that girls are not interested in camping.
OK, fair enough.
For the record, being in the Girl Scouts doesn't mean you care a lick for camping, Boy Scouts, either.
Plenty of Scouts never see a tent or campfire, though I will grant from a public perspective camping
appears to be a significant part of Scouting.
So I said "camping." When I meant "overnight." My other posts have stated "overnights."
But in reality those overnights would involve a certain amount of sleeping away from homes, in conditions that may be comparable to "camping." For instance, a SAREX or airshow. If personnel sleep onsite, where are you going to sleep? On a sleeping bag on the floor or on cots. What will you use as a bathroom? A portapotty, maybe. Maybe a bathroom if on an airport.
If my fingers miss the keys, I apologize but be aware I mean "overnights."
And for the record.
CAP is unable to effectively recruit Mission Pilots.
If we were, there would be not be constant rhetoric to that effect, nor pressure to
put hours on the airframes. My wing has something like 29. How many are there nationally? A few hundred? Maybe 1000?
Also, you don't recruit "mission pilots" you recruit pilots, and in 6-months to a year, minimum, they might be an MP, though it's usually
more like 2+ years. And due to the retention issues caused by other corners of the organization, many never even get to an F5, let alone MP.
CAP is unable to effectively recruit Chaplains.
How many units actually have one?
CAP is unable to effectively recruit AEMs, despite many wings offering these memberships for free and their
being constant rhetoric about their importance.
And despite considerable rhetoric and smoke, CAP has been unable to effectively
recruit female members, either cadet or senior, for 70 years. Those that do join have a poor
retention rate, and those who succeed are considered "exceptional" beyond their male
peers specifically because the societal trend is against them.
That won't change because of a paragraph in 52-10.
By the time this "mandate" goes into effect, Gen Carr will be happily retired and enjoying life again. Gen Vazquez will be enjoying the many voices going his way, and dealing with them as he sees fit. Good luck to both!
Quote from: FW on May 01, 2014, 07:52:53 PM
Patrick is right. Commanders need to "start recruiting" ASAP
What have they been doing up until now?
I've still not heard an authoritative answer to the following sitution:
A unit plans an event. They dutifully recruit appropriate co-ed supervision for the event. Come the day of the event, the female supervisor is striken with a severe case of the flu and cannot attend.
Does the event:
a) Go forward as planned (probable violation of 52-10)
b) Send the girls home and proceed (probable violation of EO)
c) Send everyone home (resulting in resentment of female cadets by male cadets)
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 01, 2014, 07:35:03 PM
Honestly, the cheerleading has to stop.
Seriously.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 01, 2014, 07:35:03 PM
She thinks our uniforms suck. She wouldn't join because she would need to wear one. Double up for a polo/grey pants. She's simply not interested in what we have to offer. But on multiple occasions she's offered to help in plain clothes, which of course isn't an option.
I hope NHQ sees this as a constructive input that could actually help. Let's create a new category of membership (affiliate member?) that is not required to wear a uniform of any kind (maybe one of those magnetic-backed nametages so they're identified as a member). Dads and moms could sign up for a free membership category that allows them to overnight at activities and check the coed adult leadership block. They'd have to take cadet protection training, and that's it.
That's an 80% solution. We'd still have to address how we'll support real-world missions and do activities on military bases, etc. As Eclipse has pointed out, we don't want more untrained folks hanging out around a SAR, for example. Although, that issue may wane as affiliate members hang out with CAP. Maybe it'll turn out to be a "gateway" membership category, much as Cadet Sponsor can be currently.
Of the amount of back and forth that is going on in this thread, I am curious. How many of you have brought your issues up to your commanders? For those that have, what was the response from the commanders (particularly interested in wing or above commanders, but I know you do not all have direct access to them).
On both sides of the coin, how many squadrons have truthfully and thoughtfully created a plan to implement the commander's tasking and accomplish the commander's end state?
Not trying to argue one thing over another or point fingers, I am just curious. So do not read anything into my question.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 01, 2014, 06:51:12 PM
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 06:00:49 PM
For CAP, recruiting women is no different than recruiting men.
This needs to stand on its own.
I quite agree.
QuoteThis is either disingenuous, or woefully misinformed about the state of diversity in the military, Aerospace, GA,
and society as a whole.
I suppose I could swear to you that it isn't disingenuous, but I guess by definition you would not believe me. 8)
As to "woefully misinformed," I should point out that I have been priveliged to sit through countless hours of briefings by various CAP diversity committees, not to mention all the diversity stuff I get at work. I think I have a pretty good handle on it.
After your recent change, I'm not sure what your current CAP job is these days. How many diversity reports get channeled through your office?
QuoteWe have a verifiable shrinking membership,
Really? Where are you getting your figures?
I show that as of today, we have 34, 400 seniors. A year ago today, we had 34,600. I suppose, technically, a less than 1% decline is a "verifiable shrinking membership;" it's just not a statistically significant one.
(To be fair, our cadet numbers are down about 6%, after five consecutive years of growth that exceeded 25% in total.)
Historically, over the last 40 years, our membership has varied between 55 - 65 thousand. Some years we go up; some years we go down, but we have never really been outside that zone.
We can do better, of course. But we are pretty much where we have always been.
Quotea churn that would kill most similar organizations,
Hmmm, again, I don't think I am following you. Our turnover is pretty much the same as it has always been. And, from what I've seen, pretty much the same as comparable organizations like BSA, ARC, USCGA, and others.
Do you have some different data you would like to share?
Quoteand a total female membership which is at or less then 20% total (after you remove 000, and patrons).
Well, there you've got me. Those figures seem to be correct. And again, historically pretty much what we have always had. BTW, that suggests to me that we have
over 6,000 women currently serving as senior members.
Quote
and you say that recruiting females is no different then recruiting males?
Indeed I do. Individuals serve because they enjoy working in CAP. And that is true regardless of gender.
Squadron level/Group discussions had. As Eclipse said, it's not like until now units weren't recruiting. I think we're all scratching out heads trying to figure out what to do to get a target recruit (females), because clearly it's not as simple as "go forth, unit level members and be plentiful in your female recruiting goals".
Deleted...snarky
Quote from: JeffDG on May 01, 2014, 07:59:20 PM
I've still not heard an authoritative answer to the following sitution:
A unit plans an event. They dutifully recruit appropriate co-ed supervision for the event. Come the day of the event, the female supervisor is striken with a severe case of the flu and cannot attend.
Does the event:
a) Go forward as planned (probable violation of 52-10)
b) Send the girls home and proceed (probable violation of EO)
c) Send everyone home (resulting in resentment of female cadets by male cadets)
Sadly, activities sometimes get cancelled because one or more of the required supervisors become ill and cannot be replaced. It is no different when it occurs because one of the only two available seniors becomes unavailable.
(And, BTW, the unit leadership's job is to make sure that unit members treat each other fairly and respectfully. Which includes taking actions to explain when cancellations happen due to illness that it is not the fault of any of the participants.)
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 08:29:39 PM
(And, BTW, the unit leadership's job is to make sure that unit members treat each other fairly and respectfully. Which includes taking actions to explain when cancellations happen due to illness that it is not the fault of any of the participants.)
Unfortunately, all the explaining in the world doesn't change the fact that the event would have been good-to-go absent the female cadets. That's merely a fact of life. All the explaining in the world just makes you look like you're trying to white-wash over an objective fact.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 08:23:37 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 01, 2014, 06:51:12 PM
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 06:00:49 PM
For CAP, recruiting women is no different than recruiting men.
This needs to stand on its own.
I quite agree.
QuoteThis is either disingenuous, or woefully misinformed about the state of diversity in the military, Aerospace, GA,
and society as a whole.
I suppose I could swear to you that it isn't disingenuous, but I guess by definition you would not believe me. 8)
As to "woefully misinformed," I should point out that I have been priveliged to sit through countless hours of briefings by various CAP diversity committees, not to mention all the diversity stuff I get at work. I think I have a pretty good handle on it.
After your recent change, I'm not sure what your current CAP job is these days. How many diversity reports get channeled through your office?
QuoteWe have a verifiable shrinking membership,
Really? Where are you getting your figures?
I show that as of today, we have 34, 400 seniors. A year ago today, we had 34,600. I suppose, technically, a less than 1% decline is a "verifiable shrinking membership;" it's just not a statistically significant one.
(To be fair, our cadet numbers are down about 6%, after five consecutive years of growth that exceeded 25% in total.)
Historically, over the last 40 years, our membership has varied between 55 - 65 thousand. Some years we go up; some years we go down, but we have never really been outside that zone.
We can do better, of course. But we are pretty much where we have always been.
Quotea churn that would kill most similar organizations,
Hmmm, again, I don't think I am following you. Our turnover is pretty much the same as it has always been. And, from what I've seen, pretty much the same as comparable organizations like BSA, ARC, USCGA, and others.
Do you have some different data you would like to share?
Quoteand a total female membership which is at or less then 20% total (after you remove 000, and patrons).
Well, there you've got me. Those figures seem to be correct. And again, historically pretty much what we have always had. BTW, that suggests to me that we have over 6,000 women currently serving as senior members.
Quote
and you say that recruiting females is no different then recruiting males?
Indeed I do. Individuals serve because they enjoy working in CAP. And that is true regardless of gender.
I would venture to say that of the 20% in CAP, most are cadets, not SMs.
But say it's 6000, drop down to 5200 for an easy number. That's 100/wing. Drop the 000s and others, plus empty shirts. Call it 40-70. How many of those are CP oriented? Say half? So 20-35 per wing, less than one per unit? The realistic outcome is burnout for the few able/willing to do overnight activities, or the cancelation of overnight events.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 08:23:37 PM
Hmmm, again, I don't think I am following you. Our turnover is pretty much the same as it has always been. And, from what I've seen, pretty much the same as comparable organizations like BSA, ARC, USCGA, and others.
Yep 20-30% annually, depending on how you slice it. That essentially negates recruiting.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 08:23:37 PM
Really? Where are you getting your figures?
The same place everyone else does, and as to "diversity reports" I can chew a spreadsheet like anyone else.
Number don't lie. Perhaps only the areas I have access to are shrinking, but I doubt it.
Also, in terms of manpower reporting, NHQ rarely filters for empty shirts, 000, 999, patrons, and HQ units,
which are a pretty good chunk of the membership at this point. 000 & patrons are something like 10-15%
of the total membership, yet NHQ rarely removes those numbers when reporting totals.
So...
In your own words...
Our recruiting and retention is "the same as always", our female membership is the "same as always",
yet somehow that's going to change because of supervisory requirements?
The best intentions of the most able commanders is not going to change the demographics of an organization
which have bene essentially constant for 60-70 years, especially with no national initiative beyond "you must".
Quote from: Eclipse on May 01, 2014, 07:36:08 PM
Quote from: NC Hokie on May 01, 2014, 07:24:23 PM
Let me take this discussion in another direction.
Ned (and others) say, "recruit more women," and point to the cadet sponsor membership as a way to do so. My biggest concern with the CSM option is that we (CAP) are asking non-involved parents to pay US to help run OUR program. I suspect that CSM recruitment might creep upwards if we didn't make parents pay for the privilege of helping CAP.
Thoughts? Do other organizations do this as well? I'd really like to know.
Anyone who believes CSMs are the savior here really has no idea.
CSM's are used for one purpose, to serve as drivers and chaparones for events. They are perfect to help "supervise" cadets at an overnight activity. Should there be some training involved? Of course. They are basically that extra pair of eyes to keep our cadets safe. It is "an" answer to the problem of coed supervision; not "the" answer.
Many other youth organizations have parents helping out in some capacity at one time or another. I don't see any reason why we are different in this situation, and the more I think about it, the more it doesn't bother me. I know the commanders in CAP will figure out how to deal with this. I've heard the same complaints of woe everytime a significant change to our OS was made, and we made it thru the transition with little colateral effect.
Yes, it means a slight change in our ops, but that is what makes the world go around... Just sayn' :angel:
Quote from: JeffDG on May 01, 2014, 07:59:20 PM
I've still not heard an authoritative answer to the following sitution:
A unit plans an event. They dutifully recruit appropriate co-ed supervision for the event. Come the day of the event, the female supervisor is striken with a severe case of the flu and cannot attend.
Does the event:
a) Go forward as planned (probable violation of 52-10)
b) Send the girls home and proceed (probable violation of EO)
c) Send everyone home (resulting in resentment of female cadets by male cadets)
Jeff, things happen. There should always be a "plan B".
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 08:23:37 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 01, 2014, 06:51:12 PM
QuoteWe have a verifiable shrinking membership,
Really? Where are you getting your figures?
Per NHQ we had over 61,000 members in Nov 2010, we have ~59,000 members today, that's
~2500 members or a shrinkage of about 3.5%. A year-to-year comparison is not going to be as
valid an indication of program's health as a multi-year view, and the multi-year is decidedly negative.
Neither of us wants to discuss the squandered opportunity of the in excess of 65K we had just after 2001.
But more telling is the program shrinkage. Members come and go, but unless there is membership opportunity,
they won't come back. Membership opportunity requires a place to actually join and serve.
In the same 3.5 year period above, CAP has lost in excess of 80 charters nationally. That is verifiable
program shrinkage, and not easily recoverable.
And if you go back to 99 when I joined, the rhetoric was about 1500 units, which make the program shrinkage all the worse.
Quote from: Tim Day on May 01, 2014, 07:23:22 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 01, 2014, 07:11:11 PM
Okay....here is a hint. Parents.......when child x comes to your meeting you have both the child and the parent there. You make your pitch and convince them to join.
Sure it's not going to be easy.
But it has got to be done.
It is that simple.
End of message.
MSgt, if it were simple, perhaps your squadron would have a lot of female SM. That fact that you don't (as you've previously stated) indicates you are not yet qualified to assert that it's simple.
Besides, the issue isn't recruiting female SM. The main issue is increased scheduling complexity (cost) without empirical evidence or supporting arguments that the coed requirement will increase the safety of cadets (value). This is as true for units that have predominantly female SM involved in their squadron's CP as it is for units like yours that have not been able to recruit sufficient female SM to provide coed supervision.
My squadron does not have a lot....because we have not focused our recruiting specifically to women. That changed three weeks ago and we are not having any problems meeting the requirements for the new CPP reg.
So......what's your excuse?
Sorry to be blunt......but really it is not rocket science.....we have orders from on high....our job is to do the mission.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 01, 2014, 07:35:03 PM
Honestly, the cheerleading has to stop.
Will I do my best? Of course. Can I voice my issues? I'm pretty sure I can. If NHQ doesn't like that, they can block my renewal. I'm sure that will benefit the cadets I work with, at my unit, and at encampment. I get enough complaining from my wife to push the needle in the "why do I bother" turf without the cheerleaders. MSgt Harris is a product of the military - salute and execute. Great. It works for them. We're a volunteer organization. Things get tough, loose their rewarding feeling, and members leave. We don't have contracts, just a lesser of $60 bucks on the line year after year.
I'm quite honestly disappointed in Ned. Talk about getting emotional. Eclipse pointed out that as a matter of fact women are less inclined for aviation, military, roughing it in the woods, and gets labeled a sexist? Really? We're all products of our culture. I've know cadets from Alabama who can't wear pants. Their faith prohibits it from the ladies. Didn't hear anyone bashing their culture because of it, though I'm sure most of us disagree with it. War has been for a long time, in the majority of cultures a male endevour. Flight has been, for the majority of its history. Forget the Earhart's of the world, they were the exception not the rule. Women couldn't even vote in this country until a century ago! Of all our named awards achievements...by my quick recollection, 13, only 2 are named for women! That's our culture. Is it right? Depends. Do I think women are less capable? Nope, my wife reminds me of that every day. Less interested? Definitely. I've had this talk with my wife. We have things she can help with, at the unit, at an encampment. She can't commit to overnight, because if I'm there, who is taking care of the dogs and other pets we have? Eventually, who's taking care of the kids when I'm gone doing CAP stuff? But you know what else? She thinks our uniforms suck. She wouldn't join because she would need to wear one. Double up for a polo/grey pants. She's simply not interested in what we have to offer. But on multiple occasions she's offered to help in plain clothes, which of course isn't an option. So there you have it. She could be testing officer, freeing me up to do "cadeting" stuff. She could be a finance officer. She could be a PAO at encampment. But she won't. Because while those things get her interested, she doesn't care for the uniforms. So most will say CAP isn't for her. I'd agree. But she's representative of the majority of women her age and lifestyle. And she lives with a member for over 5 years!
The cheer leading won't stop....because as leaders we are supposed to be supporting our leaders and supporting our peers and subordinates. Right now we got two camps....those of us who Salute and Solder on and those who just want to keep saying "it can't be done and CAP is doomed!" Either you get the mission done or you accept that the problem is too big for you and move on and let someone else take a swing at it.
Maybe you are right......it can't be done......if so the powers that be will have to make changes. Until then our job is to get the mission done.
Quote from: JeffDG on May 01, 2014, 07:59:20 PM
I've still not heard an authoritative answer to the following sitution:
A unit plans an event. They dutifully recruit appropriate co-ed supervision for the event. Come the day of the event, the female supervisor is striken with a severe case of the flu and cannot attend.
Does the event:
a) Go forward as planned (probable violation of 52-10)
b) Send the girls home and proceed (probable violation of EO)
c) Send everyone home (resulting in resentment of female cadets by male cadets)
Already answered. If you do not have the proper supervision for the event.....it must be canceled. End of discussion.
This is no different under the old rules......if you had two seniors and on drops out...you cancel. If you have a day event plan and the one senior who was going to attend drops out....you cancel.
Quote from: LSThiker on May 01, 2014, 08:12:56 PM
Of the amount of back and forth that is going on in this thread, I am curious. How many of you have brought your issues up to your commanders? For those that have, what was the response from the commanders (particularly interested in wing or above commanders, but I know you do not all have direct access to them).
On both sides of the coin, how many squadrons have truthfully and thoughtfully created a plan to implement the commander's tasking and accomplish the commander's end state?
Not trying to argue one thing over another or point fingers, I am just curious. So do not read anything into my question.
I alerted my commander the day the new reg went warm....and again the next day when it went hot. The next meeting we met with our CP guys and started looking at where we stood and started formulating a plan to make sure we could meet our mission goals.
Right now we are going to focus on cadet parents.....and to expand our general recruiting to focus a little more of women specifically.
An observation:
For the last several pages we have been discussing whether or not recruiting females requires a different strategy and/or method. It is safe to say that there is significant disagreement on this point.
Interestingly, all the voices in the conversation have been male. Arguing about "what women want" and how that fits with CAP.
So, I'd like to invite some diversity to this conversation.
Ladies,
1) Should CAP have a separate recruiting strategy for women?
2) What sort of differences would that entail?
3) What would the ideal woman-friendly recruiting strategy look like?
4) Are there any different considerations for retention of women than for men?
Ladies only please, at least until we have a significant number of responses.
And we promise to discuss the matter civilly . . . ;D
Just as an aside, when my daughter was younger, she was in Girl Scouts before she joined CAP. I attended one of their weekend events that was a "Daddy & Daughter Campout" They did pretty much the things I did as a cadet back in the 70's. Camping was in a wood floor cabin type tent, they had archery, fishing hiking and swimming as well as some more "girly" arts and craft type events. There were about 300 girls from ages 11 to 17 and 200 or so Dads in attendance. The girls seemed to enjoy all of it although I did see some who didn't like using worms for bait... The only thing that was really different from one of our old "bivouacs" was no BDU's or firecracker wars etc. which we couldn't do nowdays anyway. I guess my point is that emphasizing camping etc. may not be the turn off for the girls you think it is.
Not to turn this into a uniform thread, but one thing that might help is to add a simple informal uniform (for CSMs and Cadets) for these types of overnight events. Just a black CAP tee-shirt ($10 or less price point) and jeans that every cadet or CSM can wear until they (or their parents) can afford or scrounge up a set of BDU's. That might help solve a few of our recruitment (cost of membership) issues. Most squadrons I'm aware of have a similar unofficial "newbie uniform" of some kind or other already, and a similar uniform is already approved for glider flights. Why not make it official?
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 10:03:02 PM
An observation:
For the last several pages we have been discussing whether or not recruiting females requires a different strategy and/or method. It is safe to say that there is significant disagreement on this point.
Interestingly, all the voices in the conversation have been male. Arguing about "what women want" and how that fits with CAP.
So, I'd like to invite some diversity to this conversation.
Ladies,
1) Should CAP have a separate recruiting strategy for women?
2) What sort of differences would that entail?
3) What would the ideal woman-friendly recruiting strategy look like?
4) Are there any different considerations for retention of women than for men?
Ladies only please, at least until we have a significant number of responses.
And we promise to discuss the matter civilly . . . ;D
Ned, with great respect I would like to invite you to address the issues I have raised that are not specific to gender.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 01, 2014, 10:01:55 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on May 01, 2014, 08:12:56 PM
Of the amount of back and forth that is going on in this thread, I am curious. How many of you have brought your issues up to your commanders? For those that have, what was the response from the commanders (particularly interested in wing or above commanders, but I know you do not all have direct access to them).
On both sides of the coin, how many squadrons have truthfully and thoughtfully created a plan to implement the commander's tasking and accomplish the commander's end state?
Not trying to argue one thing over another or point fingers, I am just curious. So do not read anything into my question.
I alerted my commander the day the new reg went warm....and again the next day when it went hot. The next meeting we met with our CP guys and started looking at where we stood and started formulating a plan to make sure we could meet our mission goals.
Right now we are going to focus on cadet parents.....and to expand our general recruiting to focus a little more of women specifically.
So you've just now started recruiting efforts that are inclusive? Interesting. Our unit's cadet program has been doing that for two years and we have a great group of SM including females.
Which is partly why I can say recruiting females is not the issue.
This is a cost versus value issue that has yet to be explained.
Quote from: Tim Day on May 01, 2014, 10:38:21 PM
I would like to invite you to address the issues I have raised that are not specific to gender.
Tim, let me go back through and see what I can address. This is a lot of cut-n-paste.
Quote from: Tim Day on May 01, 2014, 05:28:57 PM
Both the way these uncoordinated changes were rolled out and the attitude that suddenly it's our duty to comply without stating the unintended consequences on our mission are completely at odds with the content of that curriculum.
I'm not sure I can agree that these were "uncoordinated changes." As you know, the reguatlion went through several drafts and public comment periods before the final publication. Significant changes were made in part due to the public comments, including deleting much of the proposed guidance about senior - cadet contact outside of activities, tracking of boundary violations, and some of the language about transportation to and from meetings.
At some point the regulation has to be published. In contrast to some other CAP regulations, I'm kinda proud that the CP staff put it out for comment, revised it, put it out again, and revised it again. Then we passed it along to the commander and it was published.
I certainly understand that any regulation, no matter how carefully crafted or coordinated, can have unintended consequences. it is important for us to know about them, evaluate them, and perhaps change things a bit to mitigate or avoid unwanted effects.
But we had always pushed coed supervision as a "best practice." (But not a requirement until the publication.) I'm sure you would agree that many parents are concerned about this, particularly parents of our younger cadets. It's not like this came out of the blue.
QuoteIt'd help if NHQ could take the time to explain things like the mandatory (no exceptions) coed supervision rule.
Maybe it's just a matter of perspective. We did, if fact, publish several white papers concerning the proposed changes. The whole point of the white papers was to "explain things" so that we could get meaningful comments on the draft regulation and help members in the field prepare for what may occur. We explained the proposals at length here and on the Cadet Blog. We responded to individual member questions as best as we could. We also briefed the senior CAP leadership and took their feedback.
You may be right that out of all the changes in the proposed regulation (the key changes being the concept of boundary violations, changes in our two deep supervision policies even on non overnight activities, etc) that were discussed in the white papers, that the "coed overnight mandate" was not highlighted or discussed in depth when compared to the other changes.
But the point remains that the regulation was developed in the most transparent way possible. We announced a conference to which outside agencies and non-NHQ members were invited. We gathered data from open sources. We created a draft, circulated it, and revised it several times based on feedback from multiple sources, including right here on CT.
I feel a little sorry for the corporate CP staff. It almost feels like a game of CAP "Gotcha." They briefed and explained Significant Changes 1-20 by way of white papers, briefings, and on line interactions. But some members are seizing upon Moderate Change #4 that was not explained in the same detail as the others to "prove" that "NHQ does not take the time to discuss the changes or provide the peer-reviewed research to show why Moderate Change #4 is being foisted on the field."
Obviously we now have 14 pages of discussion on essentially one of the dozens of significant changes made to the CPP. Although it pleases me that the Boundary Violation concept seems to have been accepted (frankly, that was the provision I expected to be most controversial), clearly the coed mandate seems to be drawing the most comments.
Quote from: Tim Day on May 01, 2014, 07:02:19 PM
Ned, mission pilots come to us because we offer them something they want (to fly). Chaplains are motivated to serve others and while it's ideal to have a chaplain, we also have mitigating policies that allow us to designated Character Development Instructors. If no Chaplain or CDI is available, the Commander can facilitate CD.
There is no such mitigation for the coed adult supervision requirement. What I think would be helpful here is to help members understand why coed adult supervision is so critical to abuse prevention that we will not hold overnight activities without it.
Some MPs come to us, some are recruited. Same with chaplains.
On the issue of coed supervision mitigation, in my view there are at least two mitigators. First, as Col Weiss and others have pointed out, is the CSM program. The whole point of the CSM program is to provide chaperones and drivers when needed. Although we have hung a few more requirments on the CSM program over the years than I would like (mostly online courses), they remain an extremely valuable tool to assist with coed supervision.
The second mitigation is the over six month ramp-up of the requirement. Which should allow units plenty of time to plan for and achieve the necessary coed supervision by the effective date. Some (perhaps most) units won't have to do anything because they have the necessary female seniors. Some will simply coordinate with nearby units to borrow a senior once or twice a year. Some units may need to recruit CSM or regular senior members. Six months should be more than adequate for that process.
Quote from: Tim Day on May 01, 2014, 07:59:31 PM
Let's create a new category of membership (affiliate member?) that is not required to wear a uniform of any kind (maybe one of those magnetic-backed nametages so they're identified as a member). Dads and moms could sign up for a free membership category that allows them to overnight at activities and check the coed adult leadership block. They'd have to take cadet protection training, and that's it.
Forgive me, but that sounds a little bit like reinventing the CSM program. I have no great objection if we need to fine tune the CSM program and lower fees, redesign or eliminate uniforms, or whatever.
But I think it puts the cart before the horse. I am not yet convinced that our current CSM program can not meet the need perfectly adequately. Sure, it could always be cheaper, easier to administer, or whatever.
But I will reserve judgment on this until units have tried in good faith to meet the requirement using regular seniors or CSMs under the current program.
Did I miss anything, sir?
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 11:31:03 PMI'm not sure I can agree that these were "uncoordinated changes." ... At some point the regulation has to be published.
Indeed it was published. Then two days later, the start date for significant changes was moved up from Oct 1 to "immediately". On a Friday afternoon. Right before a bunch of squadrons had weekend activities scheduled that didn't have CAPF 32s, or two-deep leadership, or coed seniors for an overnight activity.
I think that's the crux of Tim's complaint. Not only did we not receive warning of the implementation date, but in fact we were told one thing then it changed abruptly without explanation, and really threw a lot of people off.
And oh by the way, this is the third time this year something like this has happened to CP. CAPP 216 and AGH for o-flights being the first two times.
I understand exactly what you're saying, and I agree with what you're saying, but I think we can "salute and execute" while also acknowledging that the people complaining about uncoordinated changes might have a valid point.
Quote from: Ned on May 01, 2014, 11:31:03 PMI'm sure you would agree that many parents are concerned about this, particularly parents of our younger cadets. It's not like this came out of the blue.
Misinformed parents are "concerned" about a lot of things - many refuse to vaccinate their children because a celebrity told them not
to based on a fraudulent study.
Competent,
informed parents want their children to be properly supervised, something gender does not control or influence.
It would also be very interesting to know what, exactly, type of comfort, service, supervision, or aid a non-parent chaperon
of the same gender can provide that one of a different gender cannot.
As the rules are written today, a female can't be in any more proximity, location, or alone in any way that a male can't for a female
cadet, and vice versa.
Locker room / bathroom? Nope. Not if the senior has any sense, and especially not when dressing or taking care of personal needs.
Sleeping area? Nope.
"Lady issues"? No way.
So... other then incorrect assumptions, this provides, what?
Exactly?
Ned,
Come on. You can do better. Lots of us agreed with coed adult supervision as a best practice for overnight activities. The freedom to proceed without it if we briefed parents wand obtained parental permission was more than enough of a safety net, although I would have accepted even more stringent notification requirements like informing the next echelon in advance, or even submitting a risk mitigation plan on paper if it could be asserted that there was some protective value in doing so.
Changing something without coordination is by definition uncoordinated. I read the white papers. I read and commented on both drafts. I participated faithfully, thank you, and then NHQ sprung an uncoordinated change on me. Don't pretend ir was coordinated when it clearly was not.
Ned, simple math illuminates the problem. If I need 2 out of 4 SM to provide overnight supervision, I'm about twice as likely to succeed as if I need 1 out of 2 males and 1 out of 2 females.
All I'm asking us that we apply some intelligent analysis to the problem before implementing a solution that BSA uses for a limited subset of their members.
Did you really mean to imply that we have not shown good faith in our recruiting efforts in the past? Now I'm beginning to believe that NHQ really thinks we're stupid and lazy out here.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 01, 2014, 09:54:44 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 01, 2014, 07:35:03 PM
Honestly, the cheerleading has to stop.
Will I do my best? Of course. Can I voice my issues? I'm pretty sure I can. If NHQ doesn't like that, they can block my renewal. I'm sure that will benefit the cadets I work with, at my unit, and at encampment. I get enough complaining from my wife to push the needle in the "why do I bother" turf without the cheerleaders. MSgt Harris is a product of the military - salute and execute. Great. It works for them. We're a volunteer organization. Things get tough, loose their rewarding feeling, and members leave. We don't have contracts, just a lesser of $60 bucks on the line year after year.
I'm quite honestly disappointed in Ned. Talk about getting emotional. Eclipse pointed out that as a matter of fact women are less inclined for aviation, military, roughing it in the woods, and gets labeled a sexist? Really? We're all products of our culture. I've know cadets from Alabama who can't wear pants. Their faith prohibits it from the ladies. Didn't hear anyone bashing their culture because of it, though I'm sure most of us disagree with it. War has been for a long time, in the majority of cultures a male endevour. Flight has been, for the majority of its history. Forget the Earhart's of the world, they were the exception not the rule. Women couldn't even vote in this country until a century ago! Of all our named awards achievements...by my quick recollection, 13, only 2 are named for women! That's our culture. Is it right? Depends. Do I think women are less capable? Nope, my wife reminds me of that every day. Less interested? Definitely. I've had this talk with my wife. We have things she can help with, at the unit, at an encampment. She can't commit to overnight, because if I'm there, who is taking care of the dogs and other pets we have? Eventually, who's taking care of the kids when I'm gone doing CAP stuff? But you know what else? She thinks our uniforms suck. She wouldn't join because she would need to wear one. Double up for a polo/grey pants. She's simply not interested in what we have to offer. But on multiple occasions she's offered to help in plain clothes, which of course isn't an option. So there you have it. She could be testing officer, freeing me up to do "cadeting" stuff. She could be a finance officer. She could be a PAO at encampment. But she won't. Because while those things get her interested, she doesn't care for the uniforms. So most will say CAP isn't for her. I'd agree. But she's representative of the majority of women her age and lifestyle. And she lives with a member for over 5 years!
The cheer leading won't stop....because as leaders we are supposed to be supporting our leaders and supporting our peers and subordinates. Right now we got two camps....those of us who Salute and Solder on and those who just want to keep saying "it can't be done and CAP is doomed!" Either you get the mission done or you accept that the problem is too big for you and move on and let someone else take a swing at it.
Maybe you are right......it can't be done......if so the powers that be will have to make changes. Until then our job is to get the mission done.
I missed the posts from the group "who just want to keep saying it can't be done and CAP is doomed". Maybe my back-arrow doesn't go far enough? I did pick up on Ned's polite and pleasantly folksy, but totured, logic supporting discrimination in order to correct. . .what are we correcting? Something about at least one chaperone having the same reproductive organs as at least one cadet, on an overnight? Come to think of it, I haven't ever seen anothers member's, uh plumbing. It's possible we may be deceived on occasion. . .
So the General signed it. Ned has happy, if uninformed, ideas about female recruiting. They had committees and white papers. We should all shut-up and soldier.
Man, childhood has to end at NHQ someday, don't it? How many times can you stop, stumble, and fall through basic leadership? How bad can comms get? Geez, we can't
give away free flying! We can't use two vetted, adult, humans of the same gender to look out for kids? This is getting depressing. . .
Let's actually do some math.
We've stated here that our average senior membership is about 20% female. But let's assume we attain a 50/50 split by 1 Oct.
Let's state that Podunk Composite Squadron will have 20 senior members on the books by then, of which 16 are flying club members, members who have BTDT (and are done dealing with the CP), or members who only show up electronically, leaving 4 to regularly manage the cadet program. Assume (ideally) that 2 are male and 2 are female. Since they have jobs, families, churches, and other interests, let's assume they have a 25% probability of being available on a given weekend.
Probability that the CDC could schedule 2 of those 4 for a weekend overnight activity is around 40%.
(1 - (1-.25)^4) x (1-(1-.25)^3) = 40%
However, probability that the CDC could schedule 1 male and 1 female is around 19%.
(1-(1-.25)^2) x (1-(1-.25)^2) = 19%
By policy you've cut in half the chance of successfully scheduling Podunk Composite's bivouac. At a minimum, you've narrowed the dates when you could schedule it and dramatically increased your risk of having to cancel due to external factors. Eclipse has pretty much been saying this and the cheerleaders have been reviling him for doom and gloom.
We could improve those odds two ways: 1) by increasing the probability that someone will participate or 2) by increasing the population of membership. In my squadron the female SM who supervise the CP are much more likely to participate, by the way - our challenge might be finding male SM to participate though certainly not for lack of desire.
All of this is the "cost". The "value" would be in implementing a practice that improves the safety of our cadets. Thus if there were some source that suggested coed adult supervision decreased the probability of abuse occurring, the policy's value would certainly be worth the cost of decreasing opportunities for overnight activities. However, no such source or evidence has been presented. Just some emotional assertions and anecdotes about parental concern. The Center for Disease Control information on best practices for child abuse prevention talks a lot about creating a safe environment, but mentions nothing about coed leadership during overnights. The BSA implemented that policy, but none of their materials actually cites a rationale - it just seems to be an assumed value.
Meanwhile, I've found nothing that suggests that coed adult supervision results in any lower probability of abuse than two-deep adult leadership. In fact, the safest possible combination of two-deep leadership from a statistical perspective would be 2 female adults, since the recorded data indicates male adults are the most common abusers by a significant margin. If NHQ really wanted to minimize the risk of abuse, they'd ban male adults from participating in the cadet program. But of course that's not workable, is it?
Meanwhile, we now have fathers who cannot supervise their daughters and mothers who cannot supervise their sons on overnight CAP activities and we are likely decreasing the opportunities for the positive activities cited by child abuse prevention experts as the best way to help our youth!
Large squadrons like the one I'm in are less impacted by this than smaller squadrons, but that doesn't make it any more palatable for me or executable for them.
All I'm really asking for is to be convinced by facts that this is a good idea, and that the simple mitigation steps we've always had (parental notification / approval) result in some measurable increase in hazard and thus needed to be deleted. That's just aligning this one rule with the rest of the document, which has this kind of empirical underpinning. To date all I've received is an admonishment that I need to try harder, and that's disappointing.
There comes a time, and it may have happened in this case, where the points have been made and where anything that follows is simply a rehashing of those points. It seems pretty clear - there are those, with some justification, who are not happy with the changes and want it known that they are not happy, in an effort to possibly influence change. There are others, perhaps also unhappy with the changes, who are not in a position to change anything, who have listened.
I encountered this in local government politics all the time. Some council member, mayor, governor or legislature would be insistent on creating policy that practitioners knew to be impractical, unrealistic, unreasonable and definitely challenging to the people who had to carry out the policy.
Career managers had an obligation in those circumstances to point out the errors, deficiencies, impracticalities. Sometimes they succeeded and the policy was modified. Other times, especially in cases where credit had already been publicly claimed, the policy stood as written. That would leave managers in the field with only one option - carry out the policy, as we were hired to do just that and had taken oaths of office promising to do so.
In some cases, we made it work. We adapted. In other cases, we did our honest and level best to apply the policy, but it didn't work. It's a heck of a way to run things, but sometimes theorists can't be convinced without seeing actual proof. And I believe that's where we are on the CPP changes.
It's been announced. People have had their say. I believe the say has been heard. (Being heard doesn't always result in desires being accommodated). That leaves only execution. If said execution, honestly done, results in failure of policy, that failure will be evident.
In other words - energy is being wasted on objections. Time to stop focusing on objections and start focusing on proof - whether that proof supports the change or not, it will be proof, rather than theory and frustrated discussion.
A couple more minds like this, and we might have some leadership worth following. Effing A well tolt, Bubba.
Critical thinking on display, analysis trumping intuition, measured, yet firm focus on being convinced. . .
But that ain't what we got. . .as stands now, a rational person wouldn't follow this crew to Cuck E Cheese.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on May 02, 2014, 03:16:51 AMIf said execution, honestly done, results in failure of policy, that failure will be evident.
Will it? How?
This was something I was considering this evening - NHQ doesn't track overnight activities, and for that matter beyond
raw attrition, only recently started even asking "why" people quit.
There's going to be no way to track activities cancelled, or simply not planned because of this, so there will also be no
way, beyond the anecdote, to connect it to attrition, reduced initiative, or morale issues.
There will be two primary results of this:
CCs with manpower issues always having this in the back of their mind when an overnight activity comes up.
CCs who are apathetic, ignorant, or willfully disobedient getting themselves in trouble (or not, as is generally the case in CAP).
There will be no way to demonstrate it was "successful", especially in light of the fact that there is no evidence that it is "necessary".
This is the CPT equivalent of requiring Nomex in the airplanes - someone's "good idea" which creates an entry barrier that has
nothing but anecdotal evidence to support the requirement. "Hmm...it sounds right, so..."
As Tim has demonstrated, it incurs a "cost" with no indication of a "benefit".
Maybe not many will bolt over this particular issue; it's just that we have so many others like it that serve as accumulated drivers.
Quote from: SunDog on May 02, 2014, 03:29:16 AM
Maybe not many will bolt over this particular issue; it's just that we have so many others like it that serve as accumulated drivers.
An excellent point - few people quit or reduce their involvement over any single issue. Those that I have known
build up a list until one day the bucket is full.
Let's also factor in comfort levels. A female member may not want to be 1 and 1 with a male, asking for a second female or possibly at least a second male. I've seen this, so now we need at least 3 SMs in some cases.
Quote from: Tim Day on May 02, 2014, 12:29:49 AM
Ned,
Come on. You can do better.
No, Tim, I can't do better than telling you the truth about how the policy was developed. BTW, it is not
my policy, it's CAP's policy. IOW, it's now your policy, too.
QuoteLots of us agreed with coed adult supervision as a best practice for overnight activities.
And yet, somehow this thread does not feel like you agree that it is a best practice.
QuoteChanging something without coordination is by definition uncoordinated. I read the white papers. I read and commented on both drafts. I participated faithfully, thank you, and then NHQ sprung an uncoordinated change on me. Don't pretend it was coordinated when it clearly was not.
Hmmm, by the same token, do not pretend that a broad regulation that was 95% coordinated, is somehow "not coordinated" because one aspect -- among dozens -- was not.
QuoteNed, simple math illuminates the problem. If I need 2 out of 4 SM to provide overnight supervision, I'm about twice as likely to succeed as if I need 1 out of 2 males and 1 out of 2 females.
All I'm asking us that we apply some intelligent analysis to the problem before implementing a solution that BSA uses for a limited subset of their members.
Really? "Simple math?" If you have two out of four of your seniors available for your roughly four overnights a year at your squadron, you have 100% success with only 50% of your seniors.
Your activities do not occur randomly. They are planned and coordinated ahead of time. If one of your necessary seniors is not available on the first weekend on the month, you simply move the activity until you have what you need. That is no different than planning that same activity today. Math has little, if anything, to do with it. It is planning, leadership, and resource allocation. You know, leadership and management.
QuoteDid you really mean to imply that we have not shown good faith in our recruiting efforts in the past? Now I'm beginning to believe that NHQ really thinks we're stupid and lazy out here.
Come on now, colonel. Nothing I have said implies that you are stupid or lazy. I don't even know you. Did you mean to imply that I am stupid or lazy? I didn't think so, but it sounds like I should ask.
QuoteMeanwhile, we now have fathers who cannot supervise their daughters and mothers who cannot supervise their sons on overnight CAP activities!
It bears repeating that nothing has changed in that regard. Last month "fathers of daughters" and "mothers of sons" could not supervise their children alone on a CAP activity. We had two-deep leadership required then, and we have two-deep leadership required now. The only thing that has changed is the gender of the
other required supervisor. The total number of seniors required has not changed.
Quote from: Ned on May 02, 2014, 04:45:46 AM
It bears repeating that nothing has changed in that regard. Last month "fathers of daughters" and "mothers of sons" could not supervise their children alone on a CAP activity. We had two-deep leadership required then, and we have two-deep leadership required now. The only thing that has changed is the gender of the other required supervisor. The total number of seniors required has not changed.
Ned,
Repeating that assertion won't make it true.
The seniors
required may not have changed, but the seniors
available absolutely have.
Quote from: Tim Day on May 01, 2014, 10:43:08 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 01, 2014, 10:01:55 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on May 01, 2014, 08:12:56 PM
Of the amount of back and forth that is going on in this thread, I am curious. How many of you have brought your issues up to your commanders? For those that have, what was the response from the commanders (particularly interested in wing or above commanders, but I know you do not all have direct access to them).
On both sides of the coin, how many squadrons have truthfully and thoughtfully created a plan to implement the commander's tasking and accomplish the commander's end state?
Not trying to argue one thing over another or point fingers, I am just curious. So do not read anything into my question.
I alerted my commander the day the new reg went warm....and again the next day when it went hot. The next meeting we met with our CP guys and started looking at where we stood and started formulating a plan to make sure we could meet our mission goals.
Right now we are going to focus on cadet parents.....and to expand our general recruiting to focus a little more of women specifically.
So you've just now started recruiting efforts that are inclusive? Interesting. Our unit's cadet program has been doing that for two years and we have a great group of SM including females.
Which is partly why I can say recruiting females is not the issue.
This is a cost versus value issue that has yet to be explained.
No sir......we have always been inclusive.....we have several women in my unit...we are going to do some focused recruiting....targeting specifically women. Maybe increase the female to male ratio a little.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 02, 2014, 04:10:50 AM
Let's also factor in comfort levels. A female member may not want to be 1 and 1 with a male, asking for a second female or possibly at least a second male. I've seen this, so now we need at least 3 SMs in some cases.
How often have you experienced this situation? Often? Once in awhile? Once in a Blue Moon? You really reached for this one. I have more yrs in CAP than you have fingers and toes and I have never encountered this issue so I'm curious how often this happens in your AOR?
Quote from: LSThiker on May 01, 2014, 08:12:56 PMHow many of you have brought your issues up to your commanders? For those that have, what was the response from the commanders (particularly interested in wing or above commanders
I have discussed the issues with my region CC and NHQ personnel. I won't discuss personal conversations other than to say there is dissatisfaction at all levels and most of you are complaining and striking out at the wrong people.
Colonel Lee,
I'm not striking out at you. I'm attempting to request some kind of rationale. I understand your need to defend the policy as signed.
I take from your response that there is no empirical underpinning for the no exception to coed supervision policy and that NHQ doesn't have a measure of the value of the policy for which they are willing to impose the cost of compliance on units. If there was I believe you'd share it with us. Instead you're deflecting, which I get.
Thanks for trying. I don't expect to hear a response on why I had to tell my parents to fill out a new form the night before an activity either.
My interpretation of this discussion, then, is that this was a CAP/CC directed change and the CP shop at NHQ is too professional to confirm or deny that.
The squadron I'm in won't suffer, as we have the luxury of size and diversity. However, units near us will. We'll do our best to assist them and I personally will add volunteer hours to support Group overnight activities. The cost of the policy change will be borne by the membership despite the dubious value of that change.
MSgt Harris missed a step. It's not salute and execute. It's advise the commander of the issues, then salute and execute. And then revisit after the next change of command, armed with facts and change proposals.
If there is any value to the "2 supervisors of different gender" concept, the New York City Department of Education would have picked it up already. Their only stipulation on overnight activities of classes is the amount not the gender of adults.
For instance, an activity involving up to thirty high school students on an overnight are to be supervised by one staff member and one additional adult. The first required supervisor must be a teacher or supervisor. This second adult can be a parent volunteer, any member of the instructional staff, a paraprofessional, or school aide. For each additional fifteen students, another adult is required. (Regulation of the Chancellor A-670, dated 8/18/11)
No mention of gender anywhere. If there is any advantage to a co-ed supervision, it has not been adopted by a large city kid-serving organization. Not that this comparison may matter, as this regulation change is a "done deal."
Something I have not seen addressed in this issue is the use of CPP qualified female cadets. Since we require cadets 18 and up to take CPP, why can we not use that to our advantage? Surely, if we make them take that course, what possible use is it if they can't put it in to practice? I realize there are a lot of legal ramifications, but it would open up a few more doors. For instance, a female joins as a SM. She takes level 1 and can go supervise cadets as a FO. Female is legally responsible as an adult. Female cadet is a 20 year old but can't perform the same duty? I realize this is probably a legal black hole, since cadets can't legally be held responsible, but if we can entrust an 18 year old FO over a 20 year old cadet, to me, legal goes out the window.
Quote from: Ned on May 02, 2014, 04:45:46 AM
Hmmm, by the same token, do not pretend that a broad regulation that was 95% coordinated, is somehow "not coordinated" because one aspect -- among dozens -- was not.
So, it's your position that a change between the final draft and the published regulation that eliminates 80% of members from the position of second chaparone is not a significant change?
Quote from: Tim Day on May 02, 2014, 09:29:15 AM
MSgt Harris missed a step. It's not salute and execute. It's advise the commander of the issues, then salute and execute. And then revisit after the next change of command, armed with facts and change proposals.
No sir......I got it right the first time.
Quote from: JeffDG on May 02, 2014, 12:41:42 PM
Quote from: Ned on May 02, 2014, 04:45:46 AM
Hmmm, by the same token, do not pretend that a broad regulation that was 95% coordinated, is somehow "not coordinated" because one aspect -- among dozens -- was not.
So, it's your position that a change between the final draft and the published regulation that eliminates 80% of members from the position of second chaparone is not a significant change?
Jeff, after reviewing this thread I think Ned is attempting to walk the line between refusing to compromise his boss and refusing to compromise his integrity - just like we would expect of a true professional.
Lord,
You may be right... Yet I am reminding you of an incident in the Crimea, that became well-known as The Charge of the Light Brigade, because the commander of the Light Brigade followed the "salute and execute" policy...
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on May 02, 2014, 01:07:44 PM
Lord,
You may be right... Yet I am reminding you of an incident in the Crimea, that became well-known as The Charge of the Light Brigade, because the commander of the Light Brigade followed the "salute and execute" policy...
The rank is Master Sergeant.....not Master Stupid.
I am reminded of the saying support down and challenge up.
Believe me.....I am making my personal opinion known via channels.
Lord-
By your answer it looks like you may have taken what I posted too personal. Believe me it was not meant to be. But you left yourself open to that. Another way to support is what was posted I think by Tim. That of stating the consequences. There are times to have a reaction like that. Not all the time is the time.
I have never served, but I have a lot of respect by what NCOs do.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on May 02, 2014, 02:24:36 PM
By your answer it looks like you may have taken what I posted too personal. Believe me it was not meant to be.
I think online forums tend toward hyperbole and misunderstanding, and I include myself in that. I have to force myself to tone everything down and frequently fail to do so sufficiently. If we can keep the discussion more or less to the facts we can serve the useful purpose of forming the correct response, as well as ways to work within the system imposed upon us.
I don't disagree with MSgt Harris' approach to adapting to the new rule; I just think this organization needs more room for members to express their viewpoints.
There's always a kind of cooling-off period when changes like this happen. GOs don't want to revise documents they've signed immediately. However, once that period expires, and perhaps after a change of command, we'll have opportunities to revise as MSgt Harris indicates, through channels. When that time comes we'll need to be able to express these impacts in non-emotional, fact-based terms.
Tim,
Thank you for your kind words in this and other posts.
But I would ask that you and others not attempt to assign reasons or rationales to my writings beyond what I actually say.
As you have seen, I try to be as forthcoming as I can be when asked about something.
And you are certainly right about internet forums being a difficult venue for rational discussion and reasoned argument.
Look, guys, the regulation is what it is. As I said a couple of pages back, it is the result of a lot of hard work and research which was then drafted and revised by committees and leaders. Pretty much like every other regulation in CAP. And in every committee, compromises are made. The final version of the regulation contains some things that I would have written differently. Obviously, it contains things that you would have written differently.
But it went through a rigorous and transparent review and revision process before it hit its final form. True, one or more changes were made after the last public viewing. But that neither negates the openess of the process nor suggests sinister motives. Essentially by definition, everytime you put it out for comment, you're gonna receive comments and feedback. Based on that, changes may be made. But at some point the regulation has to be published, which will always include the final changes So there will usually be at least one or more changes made since the last public comment period. To me, at least, that suggests far more openness and responsiveness than capriciousness.
But I'd also like to take a moment and talk a little about the regulation drafting process itself.
First, not every aspect of every regulation needs to be supported by some double-blind peer-reviewed academic research to be valid. It's nice when some aspects are, because it helps make the drafters, leaders, and members more confident of the "rightness" of the regulation. But in most instances, there simply isn't any research to begin with, or there is substantial conflicts between studies, or the topic is self-evident. (Mom didn't need a study to know that running with scissors is dangerous, and she still managed to get it right.)
Some things don't lend themselves to research. Like, say, the 39-1. There will simply never be a study to tell us whether the aviator uniform should have a blue or black windbreaker. (They could, however, evidence based practices employed in some parts of the uniform arena.)
Second, senior leaders in every organization get to set policy. In this regard, CAP is no different than IBM, the USCGA, or the US Government. Wise leaders do not make arbitrary or capricious policy, and should listen to their stakeholders and SMEs. But ultimately, they get to make the call.
So let me try to tie this to our current discussion. The 52-10 drafters had a lot of research to show that two-deep leadership (at a minimum) lowers risk of abuse and helps ensure the safety of the cadets under their care. We have research that shows that training the leaders / supervisors further lowers the risk. We even had research that shows that training the cadets and parents about risks measurably reduces bad outcomes.
I'm not aware of any specific research on whether two deep leadership for mixed gender adolescent groups measureably increases or decreases risks when controlled for the gender balance of the supervisors. As in, I don't know of any research that shows it helps or hurts. I can imagine that it is such a narrow question, that funding such research would be an issue. But I have seen the practice listed as a "best practice" by many youth-serving organizations.
We also had the advantage of "reverse - engineering" some of the recent cadet abuse cases. That allowed us to futher identify risks and engineer reasonable safeguards to help prevent future abuse. (This ORM language should sound familiar to all of you, because that is essentially what the 52-10 is, ORM written large for the cadet program.)
The particular aspect that has generated all the discussion -- coed supervision for overnight activities (only) -- has been a Best Practice encouraged by the regulation for years. The new policy simply elevates the best practice to a requirement. No more, no less.
If it helps, this aspect of the regulation -- indeed the entire regulation -- will be reviewed. Partly because every regulation gets reviewed periodically. And partly because at some point in the near future the GLTB cadet program committee will issue a set of recommendations, and I would imagine that one or more of those recommendations will squarely address the coed supervision mandate.
Please be sure that you provide your feedback via one or more of the usual channels: through your chain of command, the cadet program staff channels, or via your local CAC.
Well, can never say CAP doesn't keep it interesting.
Quote from: Ned on May 02, 2014, 05:07:39 PM
. . .Wise leaders do not make arbitrary or capricious policy. . .
The cadre stood mute, overwhelmed by the irony of the response.
Quote from: Ned on May 02, 2014, 05:07:39 PM
But it went through a rigorous and transparent review and revision process before it hit its final form. True, one or more changes were made after the last public viewing. But that neither negates the openess of the process nor suggests sinister motives. Essentially by definition, everytime you put it out for comment, you're gonna receive comments and feedback. Based on that, changes may be made. But at some point the regulation has to be published, which will always include the final changes So there will usually be at least one or more changes made since the last public comment period. To me, at least, that suggests far more openness and responsiveness than capriciousness.
But the point you're missing here is this: The change in question went through no draft review by anyone outside of some nameless committee at NHQ.
It would be like if Operations went through a big revision exercise on 60-1, lots of changes, circulated a couple drafts and accepted comments, then in the final regulation, for the first time, slipped in a rule that says "Only pilots with Commercial and 2nd Class Medicals will be permitted to pilot CAP aircraft", then when people are shocked by this unannounced change, they say "Well, we had two drafts for review, it was just a minor wording change in the final version."
No, it wasn't. It's a significant change. It was done outside of the draft-and-comment process that was being followed, and a "shut up and do what you're told" attitude that seems prevalent here is not helping matters.
Top that off with people questioning "Why are we eliminating 80% of our membership from this role?" and getting the response "Well, I don't think there's any real research, but the committee thought it was a swell idea" and you have a demonstration of what I like to call the "echelons above reality" being played out for all to see.
hmmmmm....
I read and remmeber other threads; CAPR's often qre written to balance policy and procedure with corporate liability. (seemimgly more of the balance toward corporate/officer liability protection..but that may just be my observation) I get the vibe that this is one of those areas. If they can reduce the chance of abuse cases occuring bu reducing the number and frequency of activities that pose and "increased" risk, the ends justifies the means.
ie "knowing" that finding two deep co-ed supervision may be "difficult" and the only other "legal" option is to cancel or not schedule overnight activities. Realistically you can do most of the "local stuff" as a day trip. Sure its equally logistically difficult coming and going back and forth as finding a co-ed pair of seniors) What activites actually entail training or learning in the "overnight" period? Most activites I have been too this is usually the "tom-foolery" time any way and on the occasions that I recall (non that I was in charge of) when "issues" arise....
mk
Not to mention that it was published only 48 hours earlier, saying "this whole thing will be effective later on.. " and then that was surprisingly rescinded. Just like that.
Premature publication? Left not talking with the Right? What?
Quote from: a2capt on May 02, 2014, 06:30:21 PM
Not to mention that it was published only 48 hours earlier, saying "this whole thing will be effective later on.. " and then that was surprisingly rescinded. Just like that.
Premature publication? Left not talking with the Right? What?
That was a fully coordinated and staffed change to the regulation, donchaknow. It just changed one thing, after all. The rest of the regulation was unchanged in any way, so stop complaining.
So?
Bottom line here is the commander is the one who signs the regulation. He is one who sets the policy....not anyone else.
Committee and staffers make suggestions and provide advice.
The comment period allows field officers to make suggestions.
So come signing day the commander says "I want to make this "highly suggested" into a requirement, because I think that is the best way to go" and that is that. That is not done "outside" of the draft and comment phase......it was done AFTER the draft and comment phase.
The Co-Ed supervision was always there....as a good idea. Heck us CP guys have been spending years re-educating people who have misinterpreted the "best practice" as a "requirement". So......this is not an out of the blue, sucker punch change to the regulation.
Bottom line....we are a para-military organization where command authority is exactly that.
Sure there is shock....where the "recommended" practice become the "required" practice. Sure some units are going to have to scramble to meet the requirement or change they way the do business.
Again Bottom line is that this is the new requirement (at least in October) and we need to work to meet the requirement.
If in the theoretical future the commander decides that it is the right thing to do to change the requirements for Mission Pilots......the end result is going to be the same.....we salute and execute (while challenging the policy through channels).
Quote from: lordmonar on May 02, 2014, 06:34:37 PM
If in the theoretical future the commander decides that it is the right thing to do to change the requirements for Mission Pilots......the end result is going to be the same.....we salute and execute (while challenging the policy through channels).
Professional leadership quote.
Reminds me of the scene in Band of Brothers:
Sgt. Denver 'Bull' Randleman: I'm gonna say something.
George Luz: To who?
Sgt. Denver 'Bull' Randleman: Lieutenant Winters!
Richard Winters: What is it?
Sgt. Denver 'Bull' Randleman: Permission to speak, sir.
Richard Winters: Granted.
Sgt. Denver 'Bull' Randleman: Sir, we got nine companies, sir.
Richard Winters: We do.
Sgt. Denver 'Bull' Randleman: Well, how come we're the only one marching every Friday night, twelve miles, full pack, in the pitch dark?
Richard Winters: Why do you think, Private Randleman?
Sgt. Denver 'Bull' Randleman: Lieutenant Sobel hates us, sir.
Richard Winters: Lieutenant Sobel does not hate Easy Company, Private Randleman. He just hates you.
Sgt. Denver 'Bull' Randleman: Thank you, sir.
Quote from: Ned on May 02, 2014, 05:07:39 PM
The particular aspect that has generated all the discussion -- coed supervision for overnight activities (only) -- has been a Best Practice encouraged by the regulation for years. The new policy simply elevates the best practice to a requirement. No more, no less.
You keep saying that as if this were "no big deal", except it is.
A "best practice" is a preferred situation when all the stars align and the resources are available, it is not, however, a
required practice,
because there will be occasions when the resources are not available to use the "best possible", so then you use the "best available".
Considering the amount of rethoric that you and others espouse about the "excellent leadership qualities of our commanders", this takes
their best judgement and discretion off the table.
Quote from: Ned on May 02, 2014, 05:07:39 PM
or via your local CAC.
This is not an acceptable topic for the CAC to be involved in.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 02, 2014, 07:35:24 PM
Quote from: Ned on May 02, 2014, 05:07:39 PM
or via your local CAC.
This is not an acceptable topic for the CAC to be involved in.
Sure it is, in Utopia, where the CAC functions as an advisory unit. But it doesn't. It mostly functions as an activities unit or not at all, in my observations from both in person and feedback from others.
The whole bit about "sending feedback through your chain of command", too- where there are several layers of the ability to just divert your comments to /dev/nul and be done with it. That's several different layers of opinions, hardly a standard to appeal to.
One might see merit in your words, another might not, but in reality it's for neither of them to decide because they too, don't write the regulation.
Input should all be channeled to one body for determination, and there should be some kind of suspense plan that starts with a reply showing it was received.
The closest we have to this right now is the KB, and we all know how well that works. I've had various success with that thing, too. Most times items are left to bit rot after being redirected a couple times.
So frustrating.
^^^^^^^^^^^
So in this case why don't you cut to the chase. Use the Ask the Commander function and share the response since he signed this reg.
a2capt, I don't understand.
You don't trust the chain of command. You don't trust the CAC. You don't trust the commander.
So why bother?
You think venting on CAPTALK is going to work?
What is the solution then?
If this is really a bad regulation.....and it is not just you....then I think that your feed back up your chain of command would carry enough weight that the wing command would take it up the chain to the CAP/CC for appropriate change to be made.
And that the whole point here.
Soldier up.....meet the leadership challenge and get the mission done and concurrently challenge it up the chain of command.
If you don't do either....then the mission fails and the rule never gets changed.
I think this is where I should share the motto of my basic training squadron (3301 BMTS) "Lead, follow, or get out of the way".
Quote from: a2capt on May 02, 2014, 07:44:43 PM
The whole bit about "sending feedback through your chain of command", too- where there are several layers of the ability to just divert your comments to /dev/nul and be done with it. That's several different layers of opinions, hardly a standard to appeal to.
One might see merit in your words, another might not, but in reality it's for neither of them to decide because they too, don't write the regulation.
Well that is how a chain of command works. The military, and thus CAP as an extension, works this way. This is why people are given a title called "Commander" and why these commanders are given authority to command and make decisions. Commanders do not have to agree with you, nor do you have to agree with them. The fact that we have a "Ask the Commander" ability still boggles my mind.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 02, 2014, 08:00:17 PM
a2capt, I don't understand.
You don't trust the chain of command. You don't trust the CAC. You don't trust the commander.
It's not a matter of "trust", it's a matter of reality. Addressing anything "through the chain" means literally
sending it into a blackhole with no expectation of response, action, or even being heard.
The average unit-level member has at least 4 hops before NHQ. At any, or all of those hops, the CC
is well within his rights and authority to simply say "don't care", or "don't agree", in which case
the "conversation" is
over.
That may well be appropriate in an actual military scenario, but in a volunteer paradigm, where
the buy-in of the membership is critical to operations, it doesn't fly. Members get frustrated that
they have no voice, and disengage, quit, or disobey.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 02, 2014, 08:00:17 PM
You think venting on CAPTALK is going to work?
Recent history has shown that CAPTalk is now the most effective means of bringing CAP issues to light.
That doesn't mean it's the >only< channel, just the most direct, with the largest exposure. When issues
like this pop up, the lurker quotient increases significantly. I noticed this week as many as 40-50
people, 1/2 of which were lurkers, viewing this particular conversation.
In this case, as in many others recently, we have a member of the
BOG commenting on issues.
Whether we agree or disagree with the responses, the fact remains that you are rarely, if ever,
going to get that sort of response "through the chain".
Now, with that said, I get it, and I certainly don't believe all opinions are equal, they certainly aren't.
But typical of large organizations with a need for member buy-in and support, NHQ wants to
runs the game both ways - paramilitary, "salute and execute" when they are tired of having
the discussion, and "everyone has a voice" when things aren't as contentious or when they aren't really
all that important either way.
But you
can't have it both ways. As soon as you give people a voice "sometimes", they expect it
all the time, and when you consider that the debt sheet is decidedly in the member's favor in regards to
time and treasure, that's a reasonable expectation for CAP members. Anyone who's worn the CC badge learns
quickly that while uncomfortable conversations are necessary, if you can't articulate your plans and ideas
in a way that gets a general buy-in from your members, you will quickly be an "Army of One".
And I think most of us would fully accept "salute and execute" 24x7, if it was actually applied properly and
consistently, from top to bottom, but it's not, and never has been since I've been in. Regulations are
ambiguously written, poorly enforced, and there are no expectations of performance or ramifications for failure.
So as you and others have said, "It's salute, execute, but also discuss and consult."
And in all this, including your messages about a "plan", no one has actually told us what the
expectation is in regards to filling the significant gaps in the membership demos.
National awareness campaign?
Partner with FEMA and the military in a meaningful way?
Region and wing plans to recruit as a primary mission until we are at a reasonable strength?
"Recruit new (female) members" isn't enough.
So what is the solution?
How should we be able to make suggestions to get regs changed?
How does that apply to lower levels of leadership?
A regulation is no different then any other order....except that it is written down.
"Right Face!"
"But Sir, the Flight Steering Committee says we should go left!"
or
"But sir, in a volunteer paradigm, where buy-in of the membership is critical to operations...."
Do you see my point?
So.....what is your ideal of a "better" way of issuing regulations. And what is your idea on how your subordinates should respond to your orders that they disagree with?
I dunno, it's a complicated problem, but one NHQ does not appear particularly interested in discussing.
It's another of the baseline issues that should be brought to the light of day and fixed sooner then later.
At the core, no regulation should make a commander's job more difficult, impose costs of any kind, or
negatively impact a member's experience without legitimate data that it is justified.
I'll say this, not knowing how to personally change a tire doesn't make it less flat.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 02, 2014, 08:30:37 PMAnd what is your idea on how your subordinates should respond to your orders that they disagree with?
Ultimately they have to comply, as will the majority of those in this situation, but there needs to be
an acceptance that when adhering to the letter means simply not getting involved, or that in many cases,
even those who agree with the idea will be unable to comply because of resource constraints, then you have
to reconsider how stringent the expectation will be as you are likely to defeat your own purpose.
And when confronted with legitimate issues, responding with "little has changed" or ignoring actual
real-world problems like one parent families with opposite genders, etc. adjusting, not deflecting.
Seriously, does anyone think it's reasonable to tell a male father / commander he can't chaperon his own
daughter on an overnight? How is it possible there is no allowance for this when a number of us in this
thread alone know of one or two people in this situation?
The same goes for a waiver with proper higher HQ notification and parental consent? Those are reasonable
compromises that address and fit CAP's actual situation.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 02, 2014, 08:18:46 PM
But you can't have it both ways. As soon as you give people a voice sometimes, they expect it
all the time, and when you consider that the debt sheet is decidedly in the member's favor in regards to
time and treasure, that's a reasonable expectation.
And I think most of would fully accept "salute and execute" 24x7, if it was actually applied properly and
consistently, from top to bottom, but it's not, and never has been since I've been in. Regulations are
ambiguously written, poorly enforced, and there are no expectations of performance or ramifications for failure.
Sure you can have it both ways.
It is called situational leadership. Sometimes you do the whole collaborative collective leadership exercise....and sometimes you say "do this now!"
The regulation went through a rigorous staffing. It went out for TWO.....TWO comments periods....and then was issued (this goes into effect in 6 months). The effective date was changed.....but we still have six months to take care of the "hard parts".
What.....what has NHQ done wrong that is not inclusive, collaborative, rational and transparent.....other then that YOU disagree with one provision in the regulation?
Okay....you may or may not have a point about that provision....or others......that's cool. Write up you concerns in a white paper and send it up the chain of command. Go to E-services and drop a "ask the commander" e-mail with your concerns.
In the mean time......start working with your unit's leadership and start working the problem and get the co-ed supervision you need to run your overnight activities.....you got until October.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 02, 2014, 08:39:21 PM
I dunno, it's a complicated problem, but one NHQ does not appear particularly interested in discussing.
You contacted NHQ? Who did you contact? How did you contact them?
To use your favorite quip......Cite Please.
QuoteIt's another of the baseline issues that should be brought to the light of day and fixed sooner then later.
So....months of staffing and two comment periods is not enough?
QuoteAt the core, no regulation should make a commander's job more difficult, impose costs of any kind, or
negatively impact a member's experience without legitimate data that it is justified.
I got to drop the BS card on this.
All regulations do that. No one wants to follow any of them. Show me where anything in 39-1 has any "legitimate data that it is justified."
QuoteI'll say this, not knowing how to personally change a tire doesn't make it less flat.
And standing on the side of the road complaining about Goodyear and undermining the authority of the "tire mechanic" is doing what to make it less flat?
What was those four leadership rules you posted in the other tread.....if you don't know ASK.
Nothing is going to get fixed if we don't try to fix it.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 02, 2014, 08:51:11 PM
And standing on the side of the road complaining about Goodyear and undermining the authority of the "tire mechanic" is doing what to make it less flat?
Wow did the point go over your head.
What you do is tell someone with the ability (authority) to fix the tire that it is broken and ask them to
either come and fix it themselves, or provide you the resources for you to fix it.
And to stay with this analogy...
Absent one of the above, it stays flat, but since the vehicle is still drive-able, it's ignored
until there is 12 miles of grooved asphalt behind you, or the sparks attract the attention of a cop,
at which point you leave it at the side of the road for someone else to deal with.
CAP has a proven track record of poor retention, and being unable to attract female members,
saying "get more" or "make a plan" is not providing the resources the unit CCs clearly do not have to fix this.
One thing CAP >is< good at is pushing poorly considered, unfunded mandates down to unsuspecting unit CC's and then
holding then (theoretically) accountable for things they have no control over.
ASK FOR HELP.
If you don't have the answer.....start being a leader and find one.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 02, 2014, 09:41:48 PM
ASK FOR HELP.
I think we did, here. An excellent forum to get that help to the field, and discuss ideas.
You have nothing to offer but "make a plan".
Ned has nothing to offer but "make a plan".
NHQ has pointed zero resources at recruiting for years, or this issue, except rendering the .pdf.
Your idea is, exactly?
If this dust-up was in a vacuum, this thread would have ended a few days ago. This sustained outrage is about a long train of management face-plants. Might not even be the current folk's fault (much); but they have the reigns now.
NHQ - management by decree is within your authority. It's a poor way to manage a volunteer group; you need some major cultural change, and might need it rather sooner than appears evident. Hire some folks in dark suits to help you look at the trajectory you're describing. Business as usual is putting CAP in jeoporady. We don't have to be here, and Ned's numbers aside, I think you know, that increasingly, we are not.
Yeah, yeah, ". . .full transparancy, feedback, comments . . . yadda, yadda. . ." for the most part, you aren't credible; and if we're wrong, what's that tell you? Look up master communicators in the dictionary; you won't see a CAP logo.
It's been a long haul for CAP; a big makeover is due, is needed.
Again, my region has been operating under the "new" co-ed rules for YEARS now- at least since 2003... probably longer, but I was a cadet and didn't really pay attention. In all the ranting and raving, I've not actually seen a legitimate response to this question (granted, I started skimming a while ago):
Quote from: JeffDG on May 01, 2014, 07:59:20 PM
I've still not heard an authoritative answer to the following sitution:
A unit plans an event. They dutifully recruit appropriate co-ed supervision for the event. Come the day of the event, the female supervisor is striken with a severe case of the flu and cannot attend.
Does the event:
a) Go forward as planned (probable violation of 52-10)
b) Send the girls home and proceed (probable violation of EO)
c) Send everyone home (resulting in resentment of female cadets by male cadets)
This happened to us once on a planned overnight weekend activity, held in the mountains of Colorado (so, kinda remote). We had two female senior members for an all male group of cadets. Our 'token male senior' at the time cancelled on us too late for us to get a replacement. We had awesome training scheduled and overnight facilities planned. We didn't cancel the activity, as we could still proceed with the day-time portions of the training (which were the vast majority of the training anyway). So, we coordinated transportation with parents so that the cadets would get picked up in the evening, and we went back up the following morning, and we ended up missing only a few hours of the planned training.
Bottom line here, as cadet program leaders, we make the mission happen within the regulations that are put forth for us. It may require creativity, and some last second scrambling, and maybe a little bit more mileage on your vehicle, but we make it happen!
Something else to bring up from my last post... for a while when we were operating with only two female CP officers, we recruited a few 'token male seniors' to fill in for overnight activities and the like. We complained about not being able to find a male senior, in a sea of dads and male seniors on the 'senior side' of the squadron to come help out with the cadets.
Part of the problem (not the whole problem, but a good chunk of it) was with our attitude in recruiting. When you think of someone as a warm body filling in a place in your organization (for most of you, that mystical female CP officer), and not as a full-fledged member of your organization from the get-go, you will NEVER succeed in recruiting the people you want/need. Once we started looking for specific positions to fill (small, low-time commitment positions), with a specific purpose, we started getting more seniors of both genders to join. When recruiting CSMs, we asked for two activities a year, and for all CSMs to be able to drive the CAP vehicles (once we got them).
Give people something specific to do and contribute, and you will be surprised at the results. Giving the non-answer of "whatever you can give" with nothing specific is seen on the outside as a lame cop-out, and a sign of a disorganized unit.
Also, invite new senior members, even ones you just recruited to your CP staff meetings. Don't make the meeting mandatory, but do invite them as soon as you can. Treating them like they are part of the team from the get-go will help significantly with your retention, and getting your new seniors fully involved in the unit. As a female, this is one of the best things you can do for your new female CP officer recruits. Turning away a new recruit from 'staff meetings' of a staff that she is there to join is one of the quickest ways to get her to walk away.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 02, 2014, 09:53:33 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 02, 2014, 09:41:48 PM
ASK FOR HELP.
I think we did, here. An excellent forum to get that help to the field, and discuss ideas.
You have nothing to offer but "make a plan".
Ned has nothing to offer but "make a plan".
NHQ has pointed zero resources at recruiting for years, or this issue, except rendering the .pdf.
Your idea is, exactly?
Dude.....you know I can't offer specific help because I don't know your AOR. But the weenies at Group and Wing should. Your peers in other squadrons should.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 03, 2014, 02:08:53 PM
Dude.....you know I can't offer specific help because I don't know your AOR. But the weenies at Group and Wing should. Your peers in other squadrons should.
Rigghhhttt.
"Make a plan." Got it.
Quote from: Pingree1492 on May 03, 2014, 06:48:08 AM
Something else to bring up from my last post... for a while when we were operating with only two female CP officers, we recruited a few 'token male seniors' to fill in for overnight activities and the like. We complained about not being able to find a male senior, in a sea of dads and male seniors on the 'senior side' of the squadron to come help out with the cadets.
Part of the problem (not the whole problem, but a good chunk of it) was with our attitude in recruiting. When you think of someone as a warm body filling in a place in your organization (for most of you, that mystical female CP officer), and not as a full-fledged member of your organization from the get-go, you will NEVER succeed in recruiting the people you want/need. Once we started looking for specific positions to fill (small, low-time commitment positions), with a specific purpose, we started getting more seniors of both genders to join. When recruiting CSMs, we asked for two activities a year, and for all CSMs to be able to drive the CAP vehicles (once we got them).
Give people something specific to do and contribute, and you will be surprised at the results. Giving the non-answer of "whatever you can give" with nothing specific is seen on the outside as a lame cop-out, and a sign of a disorganized unit.
Also, invite new senior members, even ones you just recruited to your CP staff meetings. Don't make the meeting mandatory, but do invite them as soon as you can. Treating them like they are part of the team from the get-go will help significantly with your retention, and getting your new seniors fully involved in the unit. As a female, this is one of the best things you can do for your new female CP officer recruits. Turning away a new recruit from 'staff meetings' of a staff that she is there to join is one of the quickest ways to get her to walk away.
This is good stuff, this is worth taking to heart. I spent a chunk of time involved in military recruiting, heavy focus on female accessions. Management has already blown the bigger call, and isn't wualified to assist with targeted recruiting, anyway. . .if you're gonna try and make this work, print her post and save it. . .
You know, no one ever answered my post. It must have gotten lost in the sea of other posts. In case you missed it, here is my question. And, I know I am going to get thrown under a bus.
Why, if we can entrust an 18 YO flight officer to be a chaperone, can we not entrust a 20 year old Eaker cadet to do the same? They both have to take CPPT. I know, it's the whole "cadet" thing. But, why not? What conceivable reason could we not have a waiver of sorts if there is a SM on board?
It's a legitimate question left on the table for decades.
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 12, 2014, 12:07:41 AM
You know, no one ever answered my post. It must have gotten lost in the sea of other posts. In case you missed it, here is my question. And, I know I am going to get thrown under a bus.
Why, if we can entrust an 18 YO flight officer to be a chaperone, can we not entrust a 20 year old Eaker cadet to do the same? They both have to take CPPT. I know, it's the whole "cadet" thing. But, why not? What conceivable reason could we not have a waiver of sorts if there is a SM on board?
Because of the "cadet" status.....by definition a cadet is not able to take on that responsibility. It is the same reason why the 18 year old flight officer can't date the 20 year Eaker. It does not have to make logical sense....but it make "legal" sense.
And this has not been left on the table....go look at ALL the CPP threads where we bring this very subject up.....and the bottom line is that "legally"...i.e. in the eyes of CAP....cadets are not capable of accepting "adult" responsibilities.
It is the same reason why a 28 year old Capt can be a detachment commander....but the 45 year old CMSgt can't....by definition the CMSgt cannot "command" and can't accept the responsibilities of command.
NEXT question.
'regulatorily' is a better word than 'legally'
CAP regs, unlike military ones, don't carry force of law.
Quote from: coudano on May 12, 2014, 02:44:11 AM
'regulatorily' is a better word than 'legally'
CAP regs, unlike military ones, don't carry force of law.
Hence all the " ". :).
And just for completeness sake......military regs don't carry force of law.....but yes.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 12, 2014, 05:03:34 AM
And just for completeness sake......military regs don't carry force of law.....but yes.
Ah but they do, they carry the force of the UCMJ found in the Manual for Court Martial. Plus they have in big bold letters, "COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY"
Quote from: abdsp51 on May 12, 2014, 05:17:08 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 12, 2014, 05:03:34 AM
And just for completeness sake......military regs don't carry force of law.....but yes.
Ah but they do, they carry the force of the UCMJ found in the Manual for Court Martial. Plus they have in big bold letters, "COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY"
Yes....but the law makes it a crime for military people to ignore those regs......not the regs. If a reg defines a "cadet" as "a tall, slightly blue, angular weather vane"........it is not law....it is just a regulation.
I know it is a quibble here....but like I said....for completeness sake.
Here's a situation, found out there's a cadet who has two working parents. Can't bring him to meetings, but are able to pick up. A SM lives within a mile of said cadet. Parents and SM met, discussed, and have had the SM drive the cadet to meetings. There's no other SMs/Cadets who live in the area to carpool said cadet. When the SM wasn't able to attend, neither was this cadet. Under the reg, what can the unit do to keep the cadet in the program?
If the SM is using their POV, there is no problem with 1 on 1 as that trip is not covered by CAP under the to/from work rule. If it's in a CAP vehicle, totally different story.
As for keeping the cadet in the program, how many meetings are they missing? One in a while? One a month? Every other meeting? If a cadet cannot get tot he meetings, it is not the unit's responsibility to provide transportation. It is nice if they can, or help arrange it, but ultimately, it is up to the cadet and their parents to arrange for transportation.
Yes you are right....it is an arbitrary NHQ policy.
But it is consistent.
Cadets and SM can't date...no matter what their ages.
Cadet MP's can't fly with another cadet on board.
Cadets with Driver's licenses can drive golf cards (when approved) but not with any other cadets on board.
Age has nothing to do with it. Proficiency has nothing to do with it. The law has nothing to do with it. Only their status as a "cadet".
There is nothing really "new" with this CPP. The frame work has been there for a long time. You are free to voice your concerns through the chain of command to get any "problems" you see fixed.
A SM may not drive a cadet to a meeting alone.
The regs are clear.
A reg about transport does not negate a reg about cadet protection.
Right, so what do we do? I don't think the parents permission, unfortunately, covers it.
Unfortunately I think the cadet is out of luck.
I hear that all the time: " oh, mom and dad are okay with it. " when I moved here in 1998 the squadron commander of the local unit asked me to give a cadet a ride home. I refused, citing CPP. I was told I did not know what I was talking about. Apparently his interpretation of the CPP was different then my old unit and wing.
He tried the same thing: " his mom is okay with it "
" yeah, parents are always okay with it. Right up until they discover that you are abusing their kid. Then suddenly they are not. How about we avoid the whole thing by following the rules in the first place? "
I got a little bit of a rep as the new guy who seems to follow the rules. Funny how that works
Yep, heard the story a few tines before. Any thoughts on how to address this? Past experience?
+1 As currently written, there's no allowance for any waivers or special permissions.
"Mom and dad are OK" Now. If something unfortunate comes up, their lawyer will
be waiving the regs and the Unit's awareness could be viewed as complicity.
In addition to any monetary damages assessed against CAP, there would likely be a lot of ex-members,
especially considered how bright the lines are in this regard.
That we're clear on. Now how do we keep this kid in the program?
Quote from: Eclipse on May 14, 2014, 11:35:16 AM
A SM may not drive a cadet to a meeting alone.
The regs are clear.
A reg about transport does not negate a reg about cadet protection.
That is just blasted idiotic. Great example of over-regulation in an attempt to avoid the appearance of improper behavior. If Captain Pervystache is intent on doing immoral things with Cadet Puresnow, rules like this aren't a deterrent.
Quote from: THRAWN on May 14, 2014, 02:18:37 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 14, 2014, 11:35:16 AM
A SM may not drive a cadet to a meeting alone.
The regs are clear.
A reg about transport does not negate a reg about cadet protection.
That is just blasted idiotic. Great example of over-regulation in an attempt to avoid the appearance of improper behavior. If Captain Pervystache is intent on doing immoral things with Cadet Puresnow, rules like this aren't a deterrent.
That's not true. If he has no chance to do it on CAP time, good for CAP! If we do our part, and educate (as now required) ALL cadets on what is appropriate and what is not, Pervystache won't have an easy go of it outside of CAP with that cadet either.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 14, 2014, 02:13:50 PMThat we're clear on. Now how do we keep this kid in the program?
Recruit a second cadet from his neighborhood .. pick up both of them at the same stop. Have a parent with a cadet inbound pick up said cadet. Have said cadet take public transit to a point where another inbound cadet/parent combination can pick them up, that isn't out of the way.
Quote from: THRAWN on May 14, 2014, 02:18:37 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 14, 2014, 11:35:16 AM
A SM may not drive a cadet to a meeting alone.
The regs are clear.
A reg about transport does not negate a reg about cadet protection.
That is just blasted idiotic. Great example of over-regulation in an attempt to avoid the appearance of improper behavior. If Captain Pervystache is intent on doing immoral things with Cadet Puresnow, rules like this aren't a deterrent.
Seriously?
CAP has a rule that says a senior member may not be left alone with a cadet, requires 2-up leadership with a gender bias
on overnight activities, and requires 3-up for any driving during activities, but being alone with a cadet to and from a meeting
sounds like a good idea?
Have you read or seen the materials on grooming?
Yes, offenders intent on doing harm will try and find other ways, that doesn't mean CAP should look the other way for expediency or convenience.
Good luck with a civil judge and jury , too -
"Yes, the rules were clear, and they were both in uniform, but this other unrelated reg gave us a loophole, so we went for it."
Quote from: a2capt on May 14, 2014, 02:24:35 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 14, 2014, 02:13:50 PMThat we're clear on. Now how do we keep this kid in the program?
Recruit a second cadet from his neighborhood .. pick up both of them at the same stop. Have a parent with a cadet inbound pick up said cadet. Have said cadet take public transit to a point where another inbound cadet/parent combination can pick them up, that isn't out of the way.
Not always practical or possible. I know of places not too far from where I'm standing that the nearest neighbors are a few miles distant, and public trans doesn't exist. I know of other places just as close where it is unsafe to ride public trans after a certain time of the day.
This is a tough question. I, like I'm sure many here, have given rides to cadets. I knew and still do know their parents, have spent family weekends together and if little Johhny needed a ride, I'd give him one. Having to leave the program over lack of a ride? The more time I spend in this organization, the more I wonder just how it survived this long...
Well, you know, nobody wants to work any more. They just file frivolous law suits and the judges instead of saying it's got no merit and throwing it out allows it. Then they allow these ridiculous penalties like the gal that was awarded a million dollars for spilling her hot coffee in her own lap because the coffee was too hot. Duh, what do you think lady, it's coffee. "Caution, hot coffee might be hot"
Nobody wants to accept responsibility for the stupid things they do to themselves. Sue somebody else, it's their fault I Base jumped off a cliff using an umbrella as a parachute and it didn't work or I ignored the flashing alarms and stepped in front of a train.
Nope, only way to solve this CPPT problem is to dump the entire program. Then you don't have to worry about interpreting the reg anymore. Yeah, that's da answer.
End rant.
Quote from: THRAWN on May 14, 2014, 02:34:33 PMThis is a tough question. I, like I'm sure many here, have given rides to cadets. I knew and still do know their parents, have spent family weekends together and if little Johhny needed a ride, I'd give him one. Having to leave the program over lack of a ride? The more time I spend in this organization, the more I wonder just how it survived this long...
I bet most of us have, however it is what it is.
How did getting Johnny to the meeting become "not his parent's problem?" Nor should the attitude be "blaming CAP" for trying to protect this cadet (and itself).
A lot of things would be "nice" or "convenient" that simply aren't - absent the random membership of another senior in the area,
this cadet isn't getting a ride anyway.
I agree the rules should have an allowance for things like "dad supervising his daughter on overnights" and "parents allowing 1-up rides", but the
latter is a potential minefield, so you can see why CAP doesn't want to entertain the idea.
Quote from: Grumpy on May 14, 2014, 02:42:46 PM
Well, you know, nobody wants to work any more. They just file frivolous law suits and the judges instead of saying it's got no merit and throwing it out allows it. Then they allow these ridiculous penalties like the gal that was awarded a million dollars for spilling her hot coffee in her own lap because the coffee was too hot. Duh, what do you think lady, it's coffee. "Caution, hot coffee might be hot"
I agree wholeheartedly that Tort Reform is needed in this country, and I use the "Coffee Lady" example myself as a handy reference,
but to be fair to the facts, when you read the details of the case, McD's response and record of past injuries, as well as their response to
settlement offers, the issues aren't as black and white as the media has made it out to be.
Quote from: a2capt on May 14, 2014, 02:24:35 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 14, 2014, 02:13:50 PMThat we're clear on. Now how do we keep this kid in the program?
Recruit a second cadet from his neighborhood .. pick up both of them at the same stop. Have a parent with a cadet inbound pick up said cadet. Have said cadet take public transit to a point where another inbound cadet/parent combination can pick them up, that isn't out of the way.
Certainly something to look into, but as stated, a month from now, there won't be any cadets from that direction available.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 14, 2014, 02:49:22 PM
Quote from: Grumpy on May 14, 2014, 02:42:46 PM
Well, you know, nobody wants to work any more. They just file frivolous law suits and the judges instead of saying it's got no merit and throwing it out allows it. Then they allow these ridiculous penalties like the gal that was awarded a million dollars for spilling her hot coffee in her own lap because the coffee was too hot. Duh, what do you think lady, it's coffee. "Caution, hot coffee might be hot"
I agree wholeheartedly that Tort Reform is needed in this country, and I use the "Coffee Lady" example myself as a handy reference,
but to be fair to the facts, when you read the details of the case, McD's response and record of past injuries, as well as their response to
settlement offers, the issues aren't as black and white as the media has made it out to be.
Yes and no. IIRC, she had the cup in her lap, between her thighs? Maybe she should have sued the car company for lack of cupholders.
Quote from: THRAWN on May 14, 2014, 02:18:37 PM
[A SM may not drive a cadet to a meeting alone.]
That is just blasted idiotic. Great example of over-regulation in an attempt to avoid the appearance of improper behavior. If Captain Pervystache is intent on doing immoral things with Cadet Puresnow, rules like this aren't a deterrent.
Imagine that you're one of the bad guys. You want to get a kid alone so you can soften him up and eventually abuse him. How are you going to do that? You volunteer to coach baseball, join Scouts, or join CAP. Then you look for a kid who is easy to isolate. You find one. He needs a ride and is in a single family home. So then you step forward, hey, I drive right by your house I can bring you to the meeting, you say. Mom and kid and squadron cheer you because you're so awesome. This great reputation you've built for yourself will make it even less likely that anyone will realize what your true motivations are.
Not having two deep leadership is what makes it real easy for bad guys to do bad things. The two deep rule is absolutely essential. I bet we can solve this kid's transportation problem without making him an easy target.
There's a lot of overlap between what a good, generous person does to assist his fellow man and what a criminal does to soften up a victim. 99% of the time, we're dealing with the good guys, but 1% of the time the free ride to CAP, special favors, etc., is part of a clever ploy to hurt a kid. Sorry, that's just the way the world is.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 14, 2014, 02:57:56 PM
Yes and no. IIRC, she had the cup in her lap, between her thighs? Maybe she should have sued the car company for lack of cupholders.
Off Topic, but this is CAP Talk and it always goes thusly.... Go watch the first fifteen minutes of "Hot Coffee." Pay attention to the juror who explains they did believe Stella Liebeck, though parked and seated in the passenger seat, should have been a bit more careful with the coffee to the point that she deserved twenty percent of the fault for the spill, but McDonald's deserved eighty percent of the blame for "willful, reckless, wanton conduct." Read that phrase again -- willful, reckless, wanton. In the civilized world, if you harm someone, the rest of us will, through our social compact and court system, compel you to make that person whole again. She sued McDonald's because McD's harmed her willfully, not General Motors. Heaven forbid the same happen to you, but if it does, I bet you'll call an attorney, and you'll be right to do so.
Quote from: Grumpy on May 14, 2014, 02:42:46 PM
Well, you know, nobody wants to work any more. They just file frivolous law suits and the judges instead of saying it's got no merit and throwing it out allows it. Then they allow these ridiculous penalties like the gal that was awarded a million dollars for spilling her hot coffee in her own lap because the coffee was too hot. Duh, what do you think lady, it's coffee. "Caution, hot coffee might be hot"
[ . . .] End rant.
Slight off topic response:
It is worth remembering that the actual facts of the McDonald's coffee case are not what most of us "remember" them to be.
79 year-old Stella Liebeck did not simply "spill her coffee in her lap," but actually sustained third degree (full skin thickness) burns over six per cent of her body, including her genital and perineal areas and was hospitalized for eight days while she received skin grafts. She was the passenger in a stationary vehicle when the coffee spilled on her lap.
McDonalds admitted serving their coffee at a temperature of 185 degrees when most restaurants (and home users) serve it at 130 - 145 degrees. McDonalds also admitted that they knew that the product was not fit for human consumption at the time they put it into the cup since it would of course severly burn the lips and mouth of anyone who drank it before it had time to cool.
Ordinary jurors from the community (not a judge, BTW) ordered McDonalds to pay $200,000 in compensatory damages and were so outraged at McDonald's indifference to safety, they also ordered 2.7 million in punitive damages (which represented about two days worth of McDonalds' coffee sales.)
The case was later settled by the parties in a confidential agreement for a lesser amount.
Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer
There is that as well, but back on topic. I'm not "picking" on Ned, but as one of the people who helped develop the policy, perhaps such situations came up. What's the best course of action in the case of a cadet who's got both working parents, unable to get him to meetings (by the way, this was a change from when he joined, so life circumstances had changed). Obviously those of us in the CP realm would hate to loose a cadet simply because his family financial circumstances force him into a position of lacking a ride. The "best" in my opinion option is for him to recruit a friend or two, and do carpool with one of the other cadets parents taking him and their child TO the meeting, while his parents taking them home FROM the meetings. I had a similar arrangement with the cadet who recruited me. From the CPP perspective, I'm sure CAP is happy, because it's a non-SM adult, but there are two cadets present. From a risk to the child, I'd say the risk is roughly the same (maybe a bit less) than a lone SM driving him. After all, just because someone is a parent, doesn't mean they can't also be a predator.
A double up of SMs may also warrant a better outcome, but at this time there is only one SM in the general vicinity, and I know personally, I like to drive alone, listen to my music, relax, etc, and it would be a great inconvenience to force two SMs to drive together for one cadet (albeit I know most of us WOULD if that was the only way to get a cadet to participate).
So any thoughts on what to do in the short term? Public transportation is out, we're not in metro area with an infrastructure for that.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 14, 2014, 04:21:57 PM
The "best" in my opinion option is for him to recruit a friend or two, and do carpool with one of the other cadets parents taking him and their child TO the meeting, while his parents taking them home FROM the meetings. I had a similar arrangement with the cadet who recruited me. From the CPP perspective, I'm sure CAP is happy, because it's a non-SM adult, but there are two cadets present. From a risk to the child, I'd say the risk is roughly the same (maybe a bit less) than a lone SM driving him. After all, just because someone is a parent, doesn't mean they can't also be a predator.
I agree, that's a good solution. And it's permitted by the reg. You need have only 3 persons in the vehicle, one senior and two cadets is okay.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 14, 2014, 04:21:57 PM
There is that as well, but back on topic. I'm not "picking" on Ned, but as one of the people who helped develop the policy, perhaps such situations came up. What's the best course of action in the case of a cadet who's got both working parents, unable to get him to meetings (by the way, this was a change from when he joined, so life circumstances had changed). Obviously those of us in the CP realm would hate to loose a cadet simply because his family financial circumstances force him into a position of lacking a ride. The "best" in my opinion option is for him to recruit a friend or two, and do carpool with one of the other cadets parents taking him and their child TO the meeting, while his parents taking them home FROM the meetings. I had a similar arrangement with the cadet who recruited me. From the CPP perspective, I'm sure CAP is happy, because it's a non-SM adult, but there are two cadets present. From a risk to the child, I'd say the risk is roughly the same (maybe a bit less) than a lone SM driving him. After all, just because someone is a parent, doesn't mean they can't also be a predator.
A double up of SMs may also warrant a better outcome, but at this time there is only one SM in the general vicinity, and I know personally, I like to drive alone, listen to my music, relax, etc, and it would be a great inconvenience to force two SMs to drive together for one cadet (albeit I know most of us WOULD if that was the only way to get a cadet to participate).
So any thoughts on what to do in the short term? Public transportation is out, we're not in metro area with an infrastructure for that.
Build an impossible situation and you get an impossible answer.
Bottom line is.....if the cadet can't get to CAP.....he can't get to CAP.
Yes it sucks....but that is the way it's got to be. No alone time. If you try to make it work, with in the regs, but can't....you can't.
I agree that if it's blatantly a willful act then sue. But some of these ridiculous settlements and things. Why work for a living when you can sue? It's one reason why everybody is paranoid about doing something good like taking a kid to a CAP meeting. I know there are perverts out there. But what do you do? Cancel everything for the majority because of the act of a few? Tough question, tough decision. I'm glad I'm not the one to try to solve it it.
God bless you Ned and thanks for everything you do for us.
Here's a few more scenarios to address, because I feel they are a bit murky:
What about a cadet driving a cadet how about an 17 or 18 year old cadet driving a 12 year old cadet?
What if the 12 year old is female and the driver is male?
18 year old cadets get CPP training akin to SMs, and we do attempt separation for overnight accommodations based on age, but what about rides?
Not for nothing whatsoever, but I bet the only actual lawyer in the room when the new CPP was being drafted was the GC. And frankly I'd want the GC in the room. The rest of the folks were cadet programs people
I wasn't on the ground floor of that regulation, but I got an opportunity to review it before it went wider.
So let's not say it was written by lawyers and headquarters types. It was written by people who give a crap about the cadet program.
Quote from: Grumpy on May 14, 2014, 04:42:30 PM
It's one reason why everybody is paranoid about doing something good like taking a kid to a CAP meeting. I know there are perverts out there. But what do you do? Cancel everything for the majority because of the act of a few?
Well, that's the issue, isn't it?
We know that our terrific cadet program is a great resource for our cadets. Although there are no statistically-validated double blind studies to prove it, I suspect we help almost all of our cadets at least a little. We help some cadets a great deal. (That was certainly true for me. CAP came to me at critical time in my life -- which would likely have taken a different direction without the training, support, and mentoring by outstanding volunteers like yourself.)
But it is also undoubtedly true that some cadets are damaged by our program. Over the years, a few have been severly injured and even killed during CAP activities, despite our best efforts. Some have been damaged psychologically by abuse or hazing at the hands of undertrained volunteers.
And sadly, some have even been virtually destroyed after being groomed and subsequently molested by the leaders that they and their parents had trusted.
All of us here believe that -- on balance -- we do far more good than harm. Or we wouldn't be here.
The hard part is trying to craft rules and poliicies that minimize the frequency and severity of the bad things that can happen, while preserving the beneficial effects of our program. Reasonable minds can and do differ about the specifics of how we go about attempting to protect our cadets, but I am confident that we all agree that at least some rules and policies are necessary. And I suspect we also agree that any policy should be reviewed from time to time and revised as necessary.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/21/justice/new-york-child-porn-bust/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/21/justice/new-york-child-porn-bust/index.html)
(Be warned, there are some pretty serious WTF allegations in this story.)
Quote
"New York (CNN) -- They are people children are supposed to trust: A New York Police Department officer, a Fire Department of New York paramedic,
a rabbi and a scoutmaster were among more than 70 people arrested in a major child porn bust, authorities said Wednesday...
..."The backgrounds of many of the individuals ... is shocking," Hayes said. "These defendants come from all walks of life ... This operation puts the lie to the classic stereotypical profile that child predators are nothing more than unemployed drifters. Many of the defendants are, in fact, well-educated and successful in private and professional lives. They work as registered nurses, paramedics, caretakers for mentally ill adults, computer programers and architects...."
While there's probably plenty of hindsight to go around on this, the bottom line is that this is
the world in which CAP must function.
The rules are a hassle, some need to be adjusted, but until we can find a way to stop this
stuff, we have to live with it. It also underlines why it is so important to make sure our rules,
regs, and processes are meaningful and reasonable, because as this thread indicates,
people will generally be inclined to find the path of least resistance, especially when something
seems unreasonable or a waste of time. This kind of thing can actually make the situation less safe,
because the assumption of compliance leads to complacency.
Those who would never harm a child have a right to be indignant, but in the presence of
these kinds of stories, not to be willfully disobedient or allow inappropriate behavior and actions
to continue through omission (i.e. looking the other way for expedience's sake).
With the choice being Scylla and Charybdis, my personal ORM thinks it's better to not have a cadet
participate, then to put one at risk for expedience's sake only to find later he was harmed.
This planet was so much better before it was inhabited...
I just discovered that the revision to the 52-10 future dated to October has been rescinded. Is there a reason? Or is it just not available yet?
The effective date of the reg is now Apr 18, rather than taking effect Oct 1.
Quote from: Garibaldi on June 01, 2014, 07:20:59 PM
I just discovered that the revision to the 52-10 future dated to October has been rescinded. Is there a reason? Or is it just not available yet?
um the current version is effective 18 Apr 2014,
but there are a couple of requirements in it that are waived until 1 October 2014.
Quote from: coudano on June 01, 2014, 07:30:38 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on June 01, 2014, 07:20:59 PM
I just discovered that the revision to the 52-10 future dated to October has been rescinded. Is there a reason? Or is it just not available yet?
um the current version is effective 18 Apr 2014,
but there are a couple of requirements in it that are waived until 1 October 2014.
OK, just confused about the dates.
It's not just you. The rollout was, shall we say, suboptimal.
They seem to be putting the cart before the horse more and more. Then when you email them asking questions you don't get an answer.
As the
Quote from: Pingree1492 on May 03, 2014, 06:48:08 AM
Something else to bring up from my last post... for a while when we were operating with only two female CP officers, we recruited a few 'token male seniors' to fill in for overnight activities and the like. We complained about not being able to find a male senior, in a sea of dads and male seniors on the 'senior side' of the squadron to come help out with the cadets.
Part of the problem (not the whole problem, but a good chunk of it) was with our attitude in recruiting. When you think of someone as a warm body filling in a place in your organization (for most of you, that mystical female CP officer), and not as a full-fledged member of your organization from the get-go, you will NEVER succeed in recruiting the people you want/need. Once we started looking for specific positions to fill (small, low-time commitment positions), with a specific purpose, we started getting more seniors of both genders to join. When recruiting CSMs, we asked for two activities a year, and for all CSMs to be able to drive the CAP vehicles (once we got them).
Give people something specific to do and contribute, and you will be surprised at the results. Giving the non-answer of "whatever you can give" with nothing specific is seen on the outside as a lame cop-out, and a sign of a disorganized unit.
Also, invite new senior members, even ones you just recruited to your CP staff meetings. Don't make the meeting mandatory, but do invite them as soon as you can. Treating them like they are part of the team from the get-go will help significantly with your retention, and getting your new seniors fully involved in the unit. As a female, this is one of the best things you can do for your new female CP officer recruits. Turning away a new recruit from 'staff meetings' of a staff that she is there to join is one of the quickest ways to get her to walk away.
As the "token male" referred to in this post I wholeheartedly agree with Pingree's comments. Once you are welcomed into the program and given some guidance, support and direction you can quite easily get HOOKED! I did!.... and it was one of the most rewarding experiences I've ever had!
A revised version of 52-10 has been released, effective today: http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/R052_010_C5B73B2B78712.pdf (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/R052_010_C5B73B2B78712.pdf)
The rules that caused the majority of angst and concern have all been rescinded or relaxed.
Still generally 3-up with exceptions
g. Transportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family
members or cadets known through relationships existing prior to their CAP membership to,
from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader driver plus two
cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one cadet). See 2-7c for details on prior
relationships. Regarding liability insurance, 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, Civil Air Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10).
This doesn't mean 3-up travel goes away completely, and whether a relationship exists outside
CAP is probably best left to the Wing CC and JA. Were I to be in a situation where I was going to
do a neighbor kid a favor and drive him by myself, I'd still run it by wing before I thought it was "OK".
Gender-specific supervision on overnight activities no longer required:
b. Co-Ed Supervision. Ideally, the staff of adult leaders supervising an activity should
include adults of the same gender(s) as the participating cadets, but that is not a requirement. Co-ed
cadet activities may proceed without a co-ed adult staff. However, if an activity's adult leaders are of
a single gender, that fact will be publicized in advance and noted on the CAPF 32 Parental
Permission Slip (section 6) so that parents and cadets can make an informed decision about their
participation.
Casual encounters, as well as pre-existing relationships no longer a factor in CPP rules:
c. Personal Contact Outside of CAP Activities. Normally, cadets and adult leaders are not
permitted to have significant contact outside of official CAP activities. However, CAP recognizes
that there are a limited number of situations in which contact between adult leaders and cadets
outside of authorized meetings and activities may occur because of chance encounters, pre-existing
relationships, or other situations described below.
(1) Chance Encounters. Brief conversations between adult leaders and cadets resulting
from chance encounters in the community are permitted.
(2) Prior Relationships. Non-romantic relationships between adult leaders and cadets
that existed prior to one of the individuals joining CAP (e.g. family, neighbors, coworkers, etc.) are
not improper and may continue, including substantial contact outside of CAP activities. However, all
CPP standards of practice will continue to apply during CAP activities except the "transportation rule
of three" (2-3g) is not applicable. Adult leaders with prior relationships with cadets may transport
those cadets to and from CAP activities under one-deep leadership with the parent's permission.
(3) Professional Relationships. Relationships of a professional nature between adult
leaders and cadets (e.g. teacher/student, doctor/patient, clergy/congregant, etc.) are not improper, and
substantial contact outside of CAP activities may occur, provided the interactions are made in the
context of the professional relationship.10 CAPR 52-10 1 OCTOBER 2014
(4) Other Organizations. An adult leader's and cadet's mutual membership in another
organization is not improper, and substantial contact outside of CAP activities may occur when the
the interactions are made expressly for the purpose of participating in that organization's activities
(e.g. a cadet and senior join a Ham radio club and interact at radio club events, IAW club rules).
(5) Children's Friends. When cadets become personal friends and a member of one of
the families is an adult leader, the adult leader's interactions with their child's friend outside of CAP
activities in a non-CAP capacity are not improper. However, all CPP standards of practice will
continue to apply during CAP activities.
Hurray for common sense!
Quote from: NC Hokie on October 01, 2014, 05:23:10 PM
Hurray for common sense!
We need to mount a search party immediately to find all the NHQ lawyers. They seem to have disappeared for common sense to break out.
Quote from: JeffDG on October 01, 2014, 05:36:46 PM
We need to mount a search party immediately to find all the NHQ lawyers. They seem to have disappeared for common sense to break out.
Or the OPR's original text and intent were simply restored.
So where is this new basic and advanced course that is suppose to be out? Or is it going to be a last min push and stressor?
The blog post stated that the new materials have been delayed because of the Oct 1 changes, and that the due dates for completing the courses will also move to the right. No, it will not be a last-minute stressor.
Do you think that horse will ever get a chance to pull the cart instead of pushing it??
Quote from: Grumpy on October 05, 2014, 09:11:00 PM
Do you think that horse will ever get a chance to pull the cart instead of pushing it??
Sure...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEwyqNJsXAw# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEwyqNJsXAw#)
Glad to see reason prevailed. Wish I had known BEFORE getting all the parent forms signed two weeks ago for an overnight work detail at a country fair. Where it poured rain sideways. And we stood in the pouring rain all day. And the tents basically were floating and we had to relocate some of the kids to a barn. Ten days after I broke my arm (i.e. I could have stayed home as I was next to useless with a flipper for an arm and in pain). And I was the only female senior MEMBER (all those other women could be mass murderers and some how I will beat them off with my cast), at a multi squadron fundraiser- the largest fundraiser in fact for most in our wing. But at least reason eventually prevailed.
When was this activity?
The gender bias in supervision wasn't to be in effect until 1 Oct, so it should have never been a factor except
for the wailing and gnashing of teeth discussion.
You would have and will still have needed the F32s regardless.
The event was October 4/5th- so the form 32's didn't state that we wouldn't have both gender seniors- as required if not present- so in order to be compliant I still had to have the a senior female present- broken arm and all. But I must say it is really nice to do multi- squadron events (even in a monsoon) as it really helps to plan and pool resources for future events like O-Flights, fundraisers etc.