amendments to cadet contracts

[RiverAux]

find a regulation that stipulates that a senior should strive for all three missions and that would not be the case.  However I don't see it.

No problem.  CAPR 39-2 3-1(a) defines what an active senior member is and say that you must be active to be eligible for promotion. 

a.
Active Member. A member who regularly attends meetings, performs a specific duty assignment, meets training requirements, and participates in the activities of his or her unit. An active member may wear the CAP uniform and compete for grade advancement

So, this requirement to participate in unit activities is exactly the same as referenced earlier for cadets. 

So, my contention is that if a squadron commander thinks they can require ES participation of cadets they could just as easily require it of seniors before approving their promotions.  I obviously think such a move would be totally against the spirit of CAP's promotion regulations, but for those who want to stretch the regulations past their breaking point, they could do it to seniors as well. 

[tsrup]

find a regulation that stipulates that a senior should strive for all three missions and that would not be the case.  However I don't see it.

No problem.  CAPR 39-2 3-1(a) defines what an active senior member is and say that you must be active to be eligible for promotion. 

a.
Active Member. A member who regularly attends meetings, performs a specific duty assignment, meets training requirements, and participates in the activities of his or her unit. An active member may wear the CAP uniform and compete for grade advancement

So, this requirement to participate in unit activities is exactly the same as referenced earlier for cadets. 

So, my contention is that if a squadron commander thinks they can require ES participation of cadets they could just as easily require it of seniors before approving their promotions.  I obviously think such a move would be totally against the spirit of CAP's promotion regulations, but for those who want to stretch the regulations past their breaking point, they could do it to seniors as well.

However in 52-16 it clarifies activities include the three missions, however in regulations applicable to senior members, "activities" not further defined.

You're trying to apply cadet logic to SM.

 

[Nathan]

As far as the regs being clear......I guess it is a matter of interpretation.

If I as the DCC put on activities that enhance the Cadet Program......I expect that my cadets to participate actively.....it that happens to be at an ES activity as well.....it is clearly part of both the regulation and NHQ's intention to get CADETS involved in ES.

Well... that's not really what's going on here, though. The regs require active participation in the program, and the program requirements are outlined in the same regulation. You say that you enhance the program, which is fine. But your expectations of cadets to participate in the non-required enhancements you make to the outlined program cannot be construed as the same expectations that CAPR 52-16 requires in terms of participation. Again, a squadron commander does NOT have the authority to supercede a regulation, and adding on requirements that were not already in place without going through the chain is doing just that.

1) The program requirements have already been decided and recorded in CAPR 52-16.
2) Squadron commanders are encouraged to have outside activities, but such activities are NOT REQUIRED for the cadet program to be within regulations.
3) CAPR 52-16 requires that cadets participate actively in the program, which again, is outlined within the regulation.
Conclusion: Optional activities do not cease to be optional simply because the squadron commander say so.

This isn't exactly a new case. When commanders are given the authority to make specific changes, they are spelled out. IE, in CAPM 39-1, specific commanders are given authority to allow specific uniform items in specific situations. There is little ambiguity when it comes to these items. Likewise, commanders are given specific authority on how to assign cadets within the chain of command, and if they choose, to leave spots vacant. These allowances are SPECIFICALLY mentioned, so commanders have that authority. In CAPR 52-16, there is no specific authorization that commanders may obligate cadets to fulfill additional requirements at the commander's discretion. It seems as if that was the intent, then it would have been made extremely clear, probably in a single sentence.

Under the interpretation that a commander can compel attendance to activities that are not covered within the regulation, commanders get a massive amount of power to change the program. As long as he/she still requires successful completion of testing, then your interpretation would not allow us to stop a commander from forcing cadets to attend expensive, unnecessary training, or from requiring absolutely perfect attendance. If a commander decided that all cadets must participate in his new recruiting campaign, and every cadet that didn't successfully recruit ten friends to the program would be unable to promote, then your justification would protect this action. It is irrelevant whether your squadron does this or not, and it is irrelevant what your definition of "asking too much" is, since such definitions can and will differ from person to person. What matters is that this interpretation gives commanders authority to extend the program I don't think was ever intended.

Commanders can and should offer supplemental activities to the curriculum defined by CAPR 52-16. But I can see no justification on how commanders can override the decision of the people who wrote the regulation and decide that cadets aren't worthy of promoting unless they have ES participation, or color guard participation, or staff a parade. The people who wrote CAPR 52-16 had the authority to make those decisions, and ultimately, they decided that such activities were not within the realm of acceptable requirements for progression in the program. If any commander has a problem with that, they can send their suggestion up the chain of command, just like they are supposed to. Not simply make new requirements because they think the program we have is insufficient.

I understand you're uncomfortable with the slippery-slope argument I'm making, but I making it because such arguments should not even be possible when it comes to the regulations. Again, when commanders are given authority, that authority is specific and limited, so that it is nearly impossible to make a valid interpretation that allows for abuse of power. Regs MUST be written this way, because if abuse is actually PROTECTED by the regulations, then we can't stop it. I don't believe for a second that CAPR 52-16 was written in such a way that would allow, even by a slippery-slope argument, the possibility of power abuse to exist and still be within regulation. If you assume that participation is ONLY required for the program criteria defined by CAPR 52-16, then there is no possibility of abuse through slippery-slope arguments. That makes it far more similar to the regulations generally put out by CAP, and I see no reason to interpret it any other way.

And again, I can't figure out how it can be justified that a LEADER must FORCE cadets to attend EC activities. I'm not going to rewrite everything, but the point is that if you have a hard time getting cadets to go to outside activities, then the problem is almost always going to be with the leadership and the activity, NOT with the cadets. Forcing the cadets to attend an activity that they don't want to go to is not only ignoring the problem, but probably negating the benefit of that activity in the first place.

EDITED: Typos

[SamFranklin]

Nathan's right.

Another way of looking at promotion requirements is to see them as acknowledging a cadet's right to become promotion eligible upon completing the particular tasks set forth in the reg.  The reg creating those requirements does not empower commanders to restrict that right.

You can say a promotion eligible cadet is undeserving of promotion because he isn't meeting the leadership expectations and maturity, but you can't say that his inability or refusal to perform a 20 hour Unit CC approved project makes him ineligible for promotion.

Pat's thing about adding a very minor task once in a while is within the common sense spirit of the reg, but the principle of commanders making promotions harder on their own authority is not a power they can find in the reg.

[Nathan]

Pat's thing about adding a very minor task once in a while is within the common sense spirit of the reg, but the principle of commanders making promotions harder on their own authority is not a power they can find in the reg.

I agree with this, which I probably did not make clear enough. I am not saying that requiring time outside of the weekly meetings is WRONG, and that commanders should be ashamed for thinking it's a good idea. I actually would be inclined to agree with them. Few successful cadets are trained once a week. I would have no problem with additional clauses giving commanders specific authority to add a light layer of extra requirement per the commander's discretion, so long as that clause still limited commanders in terms of activity and commitment that could be demanded.

What I am saying is that using the regulation to attempt to justify the practice only leads to the possibility of even worse things being justified and protected. Regulations cannot be interpreted in such a way that allows people that much power without any oversight, which is exactly what is being claimed by those insisting commanders can legally obligate cadets to EC activities. I don't think the regulation was written that way, and if you interpret it more conservatively, then magically, all the problems associated with possible abuse go away.

If a commander wants to get cadets outside and doing stuff, there is almost never going to be a need to force them to do it by withholding promotion. Cadets don't join CAP simply to go to weekly meetings. If you offer something outside of the weekly meetings that is well-planned and interesting, then you WILL have cadets go. If they aren't going, it's because of a marketing issue, or a boring/ineffective leader, or a poor choice in timing (ie, planning during prime vacation periods). Even if you have cadets who are just genuinely not interested in doing anything outside of the weekly meetings, that can still be traced back to a recruiting, marketing, or leadership issue.

The only possible reason you could use to justify obligating cadet attendance at EC activities is if there is a big problem with cadets who do nothing more than push paper and somehow not burn out of the program before they promote very high. Per my own experience, few cadets manage to survive even to the Armstrong by attending only weekly meetings. But if they do, they usually have other issues, such as a lack of real leadership development, poor attendance, immaturity, or stagnation, and luckily for the commander, all of these issues CAN legally be handled by withholding the cadet's promotion until the issue is fixed.

[tsrup]

And if you think that a cadet isn't mature enough or experienced enough for the next rank, you do your CAPF 50.  You mention off hand (because you're trying to give that cadet tools to succeed, rather than just criticism) that attending an upcoming SAREX or CLA might help with that.  Then it becomes "SO and SO wont promote me because I haven't been to a SAREX".

If cadet promotions were truly automatic, then there would be no leeway for promotion boards or even a disapproved button on the promotions utility.   

[lordmonar]

Nathan,

I see your point and agree with them for the most part.

We should not be changeing the agree up on promotion requirments.....that is the reg says a passing score is 70% we can't change it to 75 or 80.
But the reg says that "activities" are a part of the program.

So....it is with in the preview of the commander to require particpation in other acitivies as a basis for promotion.  If that activity is also a SAREX....assuming you have clearly defined educational goals as spelled out in 52-16...then it would be hard for anyone to argue that you are infact making it harder.

Granted...this is a vague portion of the regulation....and as such....like I said we keep the requirment of participating "actively" fairly easy to accomplish.

But to say that NO COMMANDER can require it.....because some commander MAY abuse the sprit is almost as bad.  With online testing....there would almost no need at all to attend any meetings.

We have to use all the tools in our tool bag to provide a quality program.  We expect our cadets to particpate actively....including the activities outside of normal meeting nights.  You tie our hands if you don't allow us to hold back a promotion because cadet X only shows up for Character Develoment and PT testing.

[Ned]

Does anyone think that the Cadet Oath has any impact on this discussion?

Perhaps the part where the cadet promises to "participate actively in unit activities . . ."?

[RiverAux]

Ned, I've been waiting for you to weigh in and I'm surprised that you apparently agree that a commander can pretty much require a cadet to do anything they want in the way of unit activities in order to be eligible for promotion.  If you believe the current regulation allows that, then it is clear to me that the regulation needs to be changed to explicitly prohibit squadron commanders from having that degree of discretion. 

[Nathan]

We should not be changeing the agree up on promotion requirments.....that is the reg says a passing score is 70% we can't change it to 75 or 80.
But the reg says that "activities" are a part of the program.

So....it is with in the preview of the commander to require particpation in other acitivies as a basis for promotion.  If that activity is also a SAREX....assuming you have clearly defined educational goals as spelled out in 52-16...then it would be hard for anyone to argue that you are infact making it harder.

I think that point is only valid if the regulations dictate that a commander MUST have outside activities. There is no such requirement. That is actually a huge point here. A perfectly legal cadet program can run only one meeting a week, and nothing else. Will it be a good program? Hard to say for sure. But it will be fully within the regulation.

That makes any EC activities a big issue, because it means that a commander could make ANYTHING a CAP activity as a supplement to the existing cadet activities. Is the squadron getting together to play Laser Tag? Are the senior members directly responsible for the cadets (ie, the parents drop them off)? It can be a CAP activity. Watch an air-themed movie on the squadron commander's big screen? It can be designated as a CAP activity. And, I can mention again the problems even with "regular" CAP activities. If a commander dictates that cadets must serve on the color guard for a certain time, and color guard practices every Friday and Saturday night for four hours a night, that would imply a commander could withhold cadet promotion simply because the cadet can't spend eight hours a week dedicated to color guard.

My issue is that there are no real limits to what a commander can designate as a "CAP activity", nor are there any limits on the extent to which a commander may require the participation in EC activities. To use my previous example, a commander might require participation in his recruiting drive, and therefore refuse to promote any cadet who fails to recruit 10 members, because he doesn't consider them having participated actively until this goal has been reached.

I have no problem with commander flexibility, but without specifically-defined limits to what commanders may designate a CAP activity and the commitment they can expect from the cadets, then commanders wield an absurd amount of power under your interpretation. Even if you personally don't choose to bring it that far, we both know that others will. We have both been around long enough to see even the uppermost echelons of CAP use legal wizardry to achieve things that were not really supposed to be possible.

So I guess my question is this. Is there any way to take your argument, that "activities" may be defined and obligated by the commander for promotion requirements, and for there not to be a risk of that definition being used maliciously or insanely by incompetent commanders? If not, then I think a more conservative philosophy needs to be used, while a petition to grant commanders specific, limited authority to require EC activities per discretion might be appropriate.

Does anyone think that the Cadet Oath has any impact on this discussion?

Perhaps the part where the cadet promises to "participate actively in unit activities . . ."?

Not really, to be honest. Cadets can promise to participate actively in unit activities, but the question being debated, I think, is how a commander might determine when that promise has been broken. I suppose the cadet can interpret it any way he or she chooses, but commanders are the ones who are ultimately making the decision as to whether or not the cadet is filling the requirement. There were a couple times as a cadet where I was unable to attend any unit activities outside of meetings for months on end. I still "participated actively" by fulfilling the role assigned to me, preparing for each meeting per my assignment, and giving my all every time I was in uniform. But some commanders, apparently, would consider me to have been failing in my duty to participate actively because, despite my hard work toward the weekly meetings, I didn't have a weekend open to attend a SAREX. I just don't buy the argument.

[lordmonar]

So your answer is because there is no "clear" definition....then no commander may make anything required.

The argument to extremes can be used both ways.

If we are only talking about EC activities....what about regular meetings?  There is no definition about what the "minimuns" are for just going to meetings.  In theory the cadet only has to attend two Character Development Sessions per year and pass his test (online) and pass his PT tests.....and still get promoted twice a year.  That means he ONLY has to attend four meetings (assuming CD is held on a different night than PT).

So by arguing that the reg in unclear.....I would be forced to promote a cadet I have only seen twice in the last six months or so.

I agree that no one specific EC activity should be 100% manditory.....(everyone must go to this SAREX or you won't get promoted)......but IF the squadron is going to go to the effort to put on EC acitivities.....I certainly think that it is okay for the commander to require that the cadets take part in at least one of them from time to time.

So long as the requirement is know up front.....and we make sure that even our perspective members know about this requirment....and the squadron has enough EC activities to support this sort of rule (we make sure that there are 2-3 EC acitivies each month) then what is the problem?

[Nathan]

Well, I see where your logic goes, and I don't have exact regs to back me up (about to leave work), but I know that there are certain "musts" as part of the cadet program. IE, there must be a certain number of AE sessions, there must be a certain number of CD sessions, there must be a certain number of mentoring sessions, etc.

If an activity is a REQUIRED part of implementing the cadet program, I would say we can safely ASSUME that this would fall within the realm of cadet activities in which active participation is required. Things that are not mandated parts of the cadet program, such as SAREX activities, color guard, wing conferences, CAC, and the like would fall outside of that norm. Since they are not mandated to the commander as something that MUST be included in the program, cadets would not have that same sort of obligation to attend them.

This is based on the same logic I've used before. CAPR 52-16 requires certain aspects of the program to happen, or the program is not considered to be "functional." If a cadet is not testing, this would be a problem, since the writers of CAPR 52-16 seemed to believe that testing was a necessary component to cadet development. On the same note, there are mandated AE sessions that the commander must conduct, because the writers felt that these AE sessions were a necessary part of the cadets' training. We can derive, then, that if a cadet is missing anything that is either mandated by 52-16 to the cadet OR the senior, then that would safely be considered an activity by which the commander can judge "active participation." There is no cadet activity without certain aspects of the weekly meetings.

[lordmonar]

There is no such requirment to hold X number of AE/CD/Leadership classes per month.

There is a requirment to insure that cadets have enough opportunity to test so they can advance......but no to hold any sort of class.

But using a bit of logic instead of jumping up and down about "what is in the regulation".....it is clear that CAP wants us to hold these classes.....and that we expect our cadets to participate actively in them to get promoted.

And yes.....just about anything can be determined to be an activity so long as it has at least one measureable goal involved in it as per the regulation.

so....we have done movie nights.  We have done ATC visit, we do NRA rifle shooting, we do SAREXs, we do ES training, we do recruiting drives, we do community services, we do air show support, we put on NCO Schools, we take road trips to CAWG to attend their NCOLS and COBC, we have a wing Honor Guard and a Squadron Color Guard, we have O-Rides, we do model rocketry week ends.

And we only require our cadets to attend ONE......just ONE of these things between promotions.

If we are forbidden to do this...then we MUST promote the guy who only shows up once or twice a quarter to get in his Character Development credit or take his PT test.

[Nathan]

There is no such requirment to hold X number of AE/CD/Leadership classes per month.

There is a requirment to insure that cadets have enough opportunity to test so they can advance......but no to hold any sort of class.

Not a solid "MUST" requirement, but if we want to look at what CAP expects as the "Core Curriculum", well...

Minimum Monthly Contact Hours

Leadership:  1.5 hours
Includes classroom instruction, drill and ceremonies,
team leadership problems, and similar activities.

Aerospace:  1.5 hours
Includes classroom instruction, “AEX” activities, tours,
rocketry, Satellite Tool Kit, and similar activities. 

Fitness:  1 hour
Includes fitness games, drills, orienteering, classroom
instruction, fitness testing, and similar activities.

Character: 1 hour 
Includes character forums, DDR programs, mentoring,
guest speakers, and similar activities.

CAPR 52-16  EFFECTIVE 1 FEBRUARY 2011 15

These guidelines provide a baseline for cadet training, expressing CAP’s desire for units to offer activities relating to
each of the four main program elements over the course of each month. Units may exceed these guidelines and fill
any remaining contact hours with electives (e.g. special projects, emergency services training, community service, etc.).
Units may be required to conduct safety training (see CAPR 62-1, CAP Safety Responsibilities and Procedures).

I think the paragraph at the bottom is kind of important. It explains that these are the four MAIN program elements.

If we want to get a double-check on what CAP generally considers the "Core Curriculum" of the program, we can also look in P52-15.

Most squadrons meet weekly for 2.5 hours. The cadet staff, with sen-
ior member guidance, plans the program. Units should organize their
weekly meetings around a master schedule based on a 13-week quar-
ter. This system ensures the unit fulfills the minimum training require-
ments through the “Emphasis Items” and “Core Curriculum” blocks,
while allowing ample time for other projects through the “Special
Training” block. (Again, the SEP squadron’s environment will differ; see
the SEP administrator’s guide.)
Some important things regarding meeting schedules include:

In a traditional squadron, weekly meetings should be 2.5 hours in
duration.
Squadron meetings should include hands-on activities – not just
drill.
Meetings should be planned well in advance, as shown by the
depth of detail in the sample weekly schedule at right, bottom.
Activities should help the cadets accomplish what they need to
do to earn promotions.
Meetings should be somewhat cumulative; that is what goes on
at this week’s meeting ought to dovetail with what the cadets
are doing the following week.

Emphasis mine.

They have an example schedule showing what they consider to be the "Core Curriculum" here as well. I'm not going to paste it, but they list out achievement tests, aerospace education, character development, leadership, and physical fitness.

So I think it's pretty clear, even if not written down in stone, what CAP considers to be the fundamentals of the program. Fundamentals tend to tie in directly to the program requirements already demanded of the cadets. Anything that is not tested by CAP is not considered to be a fundamental aspect.

I'm not trying to undermine the importance of outside activities. I am the first in line to say that they are vital to the making of a good cadet program. But they are not part of the core curriculum, as far as CAP is concerned, so it's hard to say that if CAP doesn't consider them to be vital enough to require or test, then commanders don't have the authority to ignore that.