New CPP Codified - Updated 52-10

[Eclipse]

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.

..as you suggest just ignore it and do what you want.

I suggested absolutely nothing of the kind.

[Paul Creed III]

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=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...

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

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.

[Robert Hartigan]

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.

[Spaceman3750]

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.

[Eclipse]

^ 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.

[Spaceman3750]

^ 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.

[a2capt]

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. 

[Alaric]

We could always end the cadet program, wouldn't need to worry about it then    Of course we would need to change the US Code

[Eclipse]

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:

BAD!


This:

"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.

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[cm42]

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

[Alaric]

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

Every day, in every way, things get better and better.

[Eclipse]

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

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"?

[a2capt]

..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.

[NCRblues]

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?

[a2capt]

Hey, if the weather itself can't get it right, NHQ can claim this is now Summer, right?

[Walkman]

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.

[Tim Day]

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):

Change 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?

[Mitchell 1969]

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?