Following orders

[Eclipse]

I'm sorry when a client comes to me and says, "Excuse me. This software your company makes doesn't quite work properly can you please help me?", my first response isn't, "NAHHHHH!! You're making that up!! Go on back to your desk and quit bothering me." I don't ask them for their resume or their ID badge. I take them at their word and provide them with the technical assistance that they were asking for. I'm sorry that's just me.

What you do is ask for very specific details - information you cannot provide here if you value your membership.
If you tell a company their product doesn't work, then aren't allowed to tell them how or why, you'll get the same response.

Additionally, you guys know the rules as well as I do about talking about this stuff, or maybe you don't if you've never had to file an IG investigation before. Quite frankly I'm getting mixed messages on what I can and can't talk about. However, I can talk a little bit about the 52-10 issues because they are a matter of record. Short form, I managed to get the offender 2Bed on a technicality. His commander took a little more doing but I got him gone too BUT not by official processes but through political pressure. 

They aren't public record.

Now, normally when stuff like this happens in the real AF the ENTIRE chain of command is shown the door.

No they aren't, and certainly not without a lengthy due-process.

You're going to also have to excuse me but in my profession you can't be stupid and be in charge. Obviously that's not the case in CAP. All we ask of our SMs is that they do not be pedophiles. There is no education requirement, there is no aptitude or intelligence test or any of the other things real AF officers have to go through. There HAS to be a check on these people and if nobody else is going to do it I am.

Then you must not work in the private sector, military, government, or any other organized structure.

I'm sure we will all sleep better this evening knowing you are taking care of this for us.

Now, we've gotten pretty far afield from my original question. I have 35-3 sitting open in front of me. It's a whopping 12 page regulation on a matter that is pretty serious. My arguments in these proceedings will be:
1. You can't trust someone with a history of lying on the record.
2. Orders, given in contravention of existing regulations aren't valid.

Can I or can't I argue that and make it stick?

1. Agree in principle, making that argument in a situation where the person accused of lying obviously hasn't "gone away" isn't going to be easy,
since they likely have higher HQ support.

2. You can't make that as a blanket statement, especially without knowing which ones you're talking about.
There are any number of situations where a regulation might need to be disregarded or violated because of a life-safety or property issue.
These situations have to be considered on a per-case basis.

[falcon00]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/acad-m29.shtml

Due processed RIGHT out the door.

[Eclipse]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/acad-m29.shtml

Due processed RIGHT out the door.

Relevance?  One scandal does not a "normally" make.

It's also unfortunate that your rhetoric is amping up the less we seem to be outraged.  You've gone from a question about directives to
an indictment of the entire chain and system, with an insinuation that only you are willing to fix it.

Welcome to CAPTalk.

[lordmonar]

I say bad faith because the order was given not because it was the correct thing to do but due to somebody's personal power trip. "I'm in charge do what I say." Regardless of the fact that this individual has little to no experience or education in the matters in question. Another example. Let's say a cadet is trying to follow the cadet oath and participate actively but his active participation is blocked despite going through the proper channels. This in turn prevents him from promoting properly and gaining  the tangible benefits of CAP (higher grade on enlistment, academy appointments, ROTC scholarships).  That to me seems like it's AGAINST mission.

"Poor leadership is not actionable". With the number of individuals we have that in the real world would never achieve anything, how is this statement possible?

All non-starters.

The order may be frivilous....it may be give just because "I'm in charge".....but if it did not violate regulations or local laws it was a legal order and you are bound by your oath to follow it.

forget education, experince or any of that....it is a basic concept.....either the individual had the authority to make the order or he did not.    18 year old high school grad who is the commander has the authority to make a lot of orders....because he has been appointed to the position.   End of story.

As for how to properly protest an order you may have doubts about.......chain of command.  Your flight commander tells you to do something you think is wrong....go to the C/CC....if you don't like that go to the CC....if you don't like his answer go to the group command, wing commander, regional commander, national commander....contact the IG.

What you can't do.....is simply ignore the order.

[lordmonar]

I have to be super careful but here is a short list:
52-16 Chapt 4 para 3 section B
Chpt 4 para 4 section A
52-10 was just pretty much trampled

I've dealt with the 52-10 stuff but still dealing with the fallout.

So are we really saying right now that if a commander does stuff that is detrimental to my post CAP career that that is TOTALLY ok?

If you have to be "super careful" then you should not be here at all.

Integrity First.

[falcon00]

"but if it did not violate regulations"

And that's key because it DID. I even had to sic the wing COS on the person once. This person's lack of understanding of cadet regulations is ASTOUNDING.

So we're at the wing level now. I was just going walk in and put the place on blast but after this discussion what it's sounding like that everything out of my mouth is going to be met with a big fat "so what".

[Eclipse]

What's the wing COS going to do?  They aren't in command authority over anyone but the wing staff.

Don't confuse lack of facts and veracity with "so what"?

[falcon00]

Trust me, the wing COS completely put the smack down. And now this has to be my last post as it appears that no matter my caution with vagueness and gender neutral pronouns, apparently I've been busted.

[Eclipse]

^ We keep trying to get people to understand how small CAP is, and that  there's no such thing as anonymity  on the internet, especially here,
but no one listens.

Just the raising of the issue of a harassment complaint in recent memory automatically eliminates or highlights "x" number of wings.  Fill in a few more details and, "Bob's your uncle."   Not to mention there are members of the board and other national staffers, and these complaints and related situations are simply not that common.

There is no way to address it here past the general and quoting the process.

Your thread followed the pattern - abstract question about specific topic in regards to authority by a brand new poster, which evolved into
indictments of the entire system in 10 posts.

You could be 100% correct, and a champion of righteousness, a disgruntled former member looking to make hay, or someone on the sidelines
with 1/2 the story, there is simply no way to know.  And even if you provided full details, it's only one side of the 3-sided story, and in those
threads, no matter the response, the allegations amp up with every subsequent response.

It's simply impossible for people who value their memberships, and the privacy of those involved (and accused) to get anywhere with
1/4 a story based on something which is subjective in all cases.

[Private Investigator]

Kids were sexually harassed, physically assaulted, and stalked to the point one girl took out a TRO against someone. What was done? Nothing substantial till I showed up. Now here I am again. Once more unto the breach dear friends. I'm sorry I can't provide specific examples but I can't take the risk of tipping my defense to the prosecution.

Was anyone arrested? Being a retired policeman with 30 + years of service, when I was asked to be an IG I told the Boss I would do it but if a crime was committed people will go to jail immediately. Now if someone was physically assualted, was somebody arrested or a police report filed? Now is the TRO regarding a member of the same Squadron? Now that has to be resolved, NOW and not just ASAP.

You might not believe this but I think most of us has heard a lot of stories over the years. Now over the years some CAP members have gone to prison others had lengthy stays in jail. The Texas Cadets murder case from 1995 is one sad story. The downside to Cadet Programs is the whole boyfriend/girlfriend dynamic. Dating for teenagers is not a good ideal. As soon as a breakup occurs the next thing you know one of them wants the other to be 2B.

[abdsp51]

Looking at the sections cited, sounds like someone is not getting their way.

[Eclipse]

Looking at the sections cited, sounds like someone is not getting their way.

I'd say it's at least likely - tales of 2b's and "I'm the only one to fix this..." etc, etc., and then
the core of the supposed complaint is issues with curriculum content and weekend activities.

I'd put a venti on the counter that this started as someone's opinion of an activity or
what meetings should be like, maybe a cadet, and then escalated from there when the
the ideas were not well-received. 

BTDT, it can get ugly, especially when or if people get the idea that the complaint process
can be wielded as a management tool, we've even seen that at the National level.

I've had to deal with a few normally A-Team members who got really bunched when they were told "no",
and would not knock it off.  This can be a real problem with higher-speed cadets, especially Phase IV,
who haven't heard "no" much, sometimes at home, either. 

52-16 Chapt 4 para 3 section B
b. Special Weekend Activities.  Once per month, on average, every community-based cadet
unit should offer its cadets an opportunity to participate in at least one special event beyond the weekly
meeting. Events conducted with a neighboring unit or higher headquarters satisfy this requirement. See
Figure 4-3 for suggestions on how to meet this goal without overwhelming local resources.

Chapt 4 para 4 section A
a. Weekly Squadron Meetings.
(1) Content Requirements. Commanders should program their unit's weekly meetings
such that cadets receive the training content outlined in Figure 4-2. The unit may deviate from those
guidelines if holidays, inclement weather, special activities, or the like interfere with the unit's
normal schedule.

(2) The Cadet Syllabus. Unit meetings should be planned well and sequenced such that
the activities of one meeting lay a foundation for the activities of succeeding meetings, whenever
possible. See the  Cadet Programs Resource & Planning Guide  at  capmembers.com/library for a
suggested plan.

(3) Scheduling Requirements. Approximately one week before each weekly  unit
meeting, the commander should ensure that a detailed schedule is developed, coordinated among the
staff,  and published. This schedule should identify what the unit aims to accomplish during its next
meeting. No particular format is mandated, but CAPP 52-15,  Cadet Staff Handbook,  includes a
suggested template.

Or it could be a 100% legit, "worst-case scenario", but there's simply no way to discuss it
intelligently in an open forum.

[docbiochem33]

Cadets and Senior Members can refuse an order under certain circumstances, but they are limited in scope.

No Commander, Deputy Commander, etc. can make a member violate his or her personal beliefs in the areas of morality or religion.  These situations do come up when a person has a moral or religious objection to performing certain tasks.  A member cannot all of a sudden have an objection, but they must be something that is part of a faith or moral reasoning. 

This would be a situation that a friend of mine, "Joe,"  went through.  He was forced to sit in the Character Development courses with a Chaplain that would spend 15 minutes on the class and then another 30 minutes as to why they should all attend his church.  He objected to this on the grounds that he did not believe it was right to tell him where to go to church and that he would also be in hell for attending the church he did.  As a cadet officer, "Joe" knew this to be wrong.  He had raised questions about it and the commander basically told him he would attend the classes because he had to be an example to other cadets.  He became the example about a month or so after this conversation with the commander and walked out of the Moral Leadership class.  Funny part was 5 cadets followed and nothing was done because even the Group CC said it had crossed the line when they were forced to listen about a church.

I also remember a situation where a member was 2b'd in paper but nothing was sent in to NHQ.  The senior members running an activity were upset that some of the cadets were a little late to a formation at a weekend activity because they were talking with members of a local National Guard unit that was actually feeding them.  As punishment the seniors decided that the cadets were going to spend about 2 hours outside performing a search as part of the SAR training they were doing. 

This amount of training would have been okay with many of the cadets who were prepared, but not for some as they were in fall/spring jackets and it had decided to snow the night before. (Great living in a snow belt above the 45th parallel since it will snow and no one plans on it.)  When the member voiced concerns the seniors through him out and then told him to sign out and sit at the training for the rest of the weekend so that he could take cadets home.  They even had this member clean areas and take out trash.

Was the member right in voicing concerns and telling the seniors leading the activity that sending people out in inappropriate clothing was wrong?  Yes.  As seniors they were responsible for the safety of the cadets and seniors under their charge.  The member also had the responsibility to report this as soon as possible, but they did not.

The member was given a 2b for nit signing out of the activity, but it was not sent in to National HQ.  I think there are several reasons for this:

1.  You cannot make cadets participate in something that is unsafe.  Sending people out in clothing not meant for the climate is unsafe and CAP could have been held responsible.

2.  If this would have been investigated properly, the wing wold have found a lot of problems with the unit and its spending practices.

3.  Making a member clean after the issue and after you told them to sign out mutes the idea that you wanted them to not participate.  You are having them clean the mission base area means they are participating.

4.  Telling a member that he/ she cannot leave because you want them to drive cadets home is also another issue.  If you fail to let him leave then you are looking at legal issues.  It may be bad that the member is leaving and taking about half the cadets with him, but that is the choice the seniors made.

It is always a sticky situation when people give orders and you are unsure what to do.  I say this, "If it is way out there in nature, don't do it."  If it is questionable and does not break the law, follow the order, document everything about the order, and then contact someone higher up for guidance.  What may seem questionable may not be.  If the order is questionable, then higher levels of command can do something.

Just a few thoughts and my opinion.

[Eclipse]

This would be a situation that a friend of mine, "Joe,"  went through.  He was forced to sit in the Character Development courses with a Chaplain that would spend 15 minutes on the class and then another 30 minutes as to why they should all attend his church.  He objected to this on the grounds that he did not believe it was right to tell him where to go to church and that he would also be in hell for attending the church he did.  As a cadet officer, "Joe" knew this to be wrong.  He had raised questions about it and the commander basically told him he would attend the classes because he had to be an example to other cadets.  He became the example about a month or so after this conversation with the commander and walked out of the Moral Leadership class.  Funny part was 5 cadets followed and nothing was done because even the Group CC said it had crossed the line when they were forced to listen about a church.

The Chaplain was violating CAP regs and policy in this regard and should have been disciplined himself.
This would be grounds for a legit IG complaint if the CC will not correct it.

The Group CC should have done more then comment.  This person should be an Ex-Chaplain.

I also remember a situation where a member was 2b'd in paper but nothing was sent in to NHQ.

Then he was not 2b'ed, your comments as to why it would not have been sustained are correct.  However, there are situations where a member
may be too deeply involved to simply leave, and there may well be civil ramifications if they just scram.

ES is going to be the place this would happen most, since at some point you accept responsibility for a duty and it involves life-safety - if you disobey a
proper directive, and someone is injured or dies, you could well be liable.  BTDT.

The CP would be the other.  If you accept loco-parentis on cadets, and then decide to simply abandon them, it could be the same deal.

There are no "legal issues", external to CAP, when a commander tells someone to stay and they don't like it.  Unless they are being physically
restrained (or keys not returned, etc.), people stay voluntarily, happy or not.  There's no law that restricts people from not being happy.
If you go to an activity in a group via COV or airplane, and decide mid-way you want to go home "because", CAP is under no obligation to
provide you means to do so, especially if it disrupts the activity.

Professional courtesy and compassion would, but it's not required, legally or otherwise.

[docbiochem33]

These events occurred many many moons ago.  The members in question did report them, but not much was really done.

With the cadet who left the Moral Leadership class, the Group Commander made it clear the if the Chaplain left his teaching plan and went into information about his church then members had a right to leave since it had nothing to do with Moral Leadership.

With the safety issue, the seniors leading the activity threatened cadets to the point they would not say anything.  The Group Commander and IG didn't want to do anything because they were covering things up about flying and charging CAP for it.  The Wing IG didn't want to do anything because we found when up north no one wants to visit you unless there is something in it for them. 

It all came out in the wash later when all of the seniors involved were basically caught doing stuff they weren't supposed to.  One had an accident with CAP property and that opened a can of worms for everyone.  Wing found a senior charging fuel to the squadron, pilots being charged because 4 people were flying and not paying for it, cadet funds being spent on senior activities and the airplane.  It only took about 3 years, but they were gone.

[Eclipse]

Sad.

It just stresses why process and procedure has to be followed if we want to ever fix things.

That Chaplain should have been removed.  Allowing people to just walk away is disrespectful and sends the improper message.

And as to the IG process, once started, it has to be followed through, but the complaints have to be filed properly and
appealed higher if nothing happens.

I believe I read that they either implemented, or were discussing, a national complaint tracking system to insure everything properly filed is
followed up.

(To those coming here from Google, despite the frequent discussions here, complaints and related issues are actually fairly unusual in CAP)

[Майор Хаткевич]

That Chaplain should have been removed.

Agreed.

Allowing people to just walk away is disrespectful and sends the improper message.

If someone was trying to force me to stay in a situation like this, then I would turn a lot more disrespectful and improper than by just walking away.

[Eclipse]

Allowing people to just walk away is disrespectful and sends the improper message.

If someone was trying to force me to stay in a situation like this, then I would turn a lot more disrespectful and improper than by just walking away.

I don't disagree, but my point was that allowing the cadets to simply walk away is not the proper solution, but is, unfortunately, a typical CAP
response.   Instead of addressing the actual issue, and adjusting or removing the Chaplain, the practice was allowed to continue with
cadets allowed to simply disengage.

One uncomfortable conversation avoided to the detriment of the entire unit, especially the cadets. 

[Chappie]

Allowing people to just walk away is disrespectful and sends the improper message.

If someone was trying to force me to stay in a situation like this, then I would turn a lot more disrespectful and improper than by just walking away.

I don't disagree, but my point was that allowing the cadets to simply walk away is not the proper solution, but is, unfortunately, a typical CAP
response.   Instead of addressing the actual issue, and adjusting or removing the Chaplain, the practice was allowed to continue with
cadets allowed to simply disengage.

One uncomfortable conversation avoided to the detriment of the entire unit, especially the cadets.

It is unfortunate that the commander did not either counsel the chaplain or if he or she felt uncomfortable in doing so, bring it to the attention of the wing chaplain.   Counseling the chaplain, either by the squadron commander or wing chaplain could have helped alleviate a distressing situation.  From my experience, the majority of chaplains would have heeded the counsel and tempered their remarks in the future.   Unfortunately there are some chaplains who are like some CAP members, that further steps need to be taken to modify their behavior.  Removing a chaplain is not a simple process...but there are ways to deal with a chaplain who will not comply 

[Майор Хаткевич]

Chappie,

I may come off as hostile towards Chaplains, but I am not. I don't feel the need to utilize them personally, I've had bad experiences overall, but I understand what they are good for to those who want them. Lets make it clear, there are certainly chaplains like the one mentioned in this incident. There are certainly those who are a bad fit for the job. But most ARE respectful, knowledgeable, and play by the rules.

My personal view is that we really don't need a chaplain corps. The RM is full time, with religious people making up the bulk of service members. They are there because those people may need them a lot more than we do. For us? a 2-2.5 hour meeting per week? A day activity? A weekend activity? A week activity? Some NCSAs are around 2 weeks.

If you have issues that you need religious guidance for, then either wait to go to your house of worship or your holyman/woman. Or give them a call from the activity you are at. If it's a non-religious issue, then you should be able to talk to ANY SM. Most of the "troubles" I experienced as a cadet were resolved by the regular SMs. As it should be.