New CPP Codified - Updated 52-10

[lordmonar]

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?

[Eclipse]

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.

[Eclipse]

...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.

[Ed Bos]

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.

[Panache]

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?

[a2capt]

Because they can.

[Spaceman3750]

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?

[NCRblues]

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....

[Panache]

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.

[PHall]

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.

[MSG Mac]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

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.

[Tim Day]

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,  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

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.

[SunDog]

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.

[Ed Bos]

Easy guys... same team...

[davidsinn]

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.

[Eclipse]

You left? Thats a loss.

Bummer.

[Tim Day]

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.

[Panache]

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.

[NC Hokie]

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.