CD Sessions & Approved Presenters

[Fubar]

Because there is nothing special to being a CDI? As noted, the process is extremely simple now. Have your CC bless you and pay one of your neighbors to write a letter saying something nice about you. Bam, you're a CDI! That's not exactly high-level training. In fact it's not training at all.

Not exactly in keeping with Core Values or good character development, either. And I don't even need to be a CDI to figure that out.

Sorry, I was attempting to use humor to underscore my point.

[Fubar]

<snip>
Because there is nothing special to being a CDI? As noted, the process is extremely simple now. Have your CC bless you and pay one of your neighbors to write a letter saying something nice about you. Bam, you're a CDI! That's not exactly high-level training. In fact it's not training at all.

A process that has no real requirements is a process that's not needed. <snip>

You forgot to include in the application process that the applicant needs to have completed the Training Leaders of Cadets course and the Basic Instructor Course....and once appointed begin the 225 Specialty Track.

That is a good point, but the training isn't specific to being a CDI. Perhaps add BIC to the CP senior rating and all senior rated CP are authorized to lead a CD discussion. Or even just complete TLC and BIC regardless and with CC approval, you're good to go.

As I mentioned in another thread, we need to eliminate hoops in this organization, this seems like an easy one.

This also solves the problem of enrolling folks into a speciality track they may not be interested in. On the cover of the 225 pamphlet has this in big letters:

God does not call the qualified, he qualifies the called.

Bam, I'm already out. I'm enrolled, but I won't be participating nor advancing (which isn't required). So again, if I want to do is lead CD discussions, why is there so much associated baggage with it? I mean, to be blessed (pardon the pun) to facilitate a CD discussion, why should I be asked to also do this:

Provide non-clergy support to assist chaplains in providing ministry to the CAP community. These duties may include, providing administrative or logistical support at an activity, acquiring/performing musical accompaniment for services, visiting sick, injured, elderly and home-bound members, providing non-denominational prayers, or other duties.

Noble objectives to be sure, but I'm not looking to be a chaplain-lite.

I underestand and appreciate Moral Leadership started thanks to the chaplain corps. It is time however to move CD under cadet programs and have requirements that pertain to CP be the path to being qualified to lead a CD discussion.

[Chappie]

<snip>.... why should I be asked to also do this:

Provide non-clergy support to assist chaplains in providing ministry to the CAP community. These duties may include, providing administrative or logistical support at an activity, acquiring/performing musical accompaniment for services, visiting sick, injured, elderly and home-bound members, providing non-denominational prayers, or other duties.

Noble objectives to be sure, but I'm not looking to be a chaplain-lite. <snip>

No one is mandating that a CDI be a "chaplain-lite".  Please note the word "may" and not "shall".  This item simply provides the latitude for a CDI to perform such responsibilities if they choose to. There are many CDIs who want to be involved in these areas...there are others who desire to limit their responsibility to facilitate CD sessions.   Like all members of members of CAP, CDIs should have the opportunity to grow personally and professionally. 

[Fubar]

This part isn't may or should:

Provide non-clergy support to assist chaplains in providing ministry to the CAP community.

There's no way I'm assisting anybody, chaplain or otherwise, in providing ministry to the CAP community. It's something I simply cannot and will not do. Now the second sentence you quoted does seem to attempt to backtrack a bit from the first by trying to define "providing ministry" with a bunch of may be this or that. But it's all framed under "providing ministry" and that's religious and not appropriate for me to be anywhere near that type of mission statement.

So, again, why do I need to be providing non-clergy support to assist chaplains in providing ministry to the CAP community when all I want to do is be the adult facilitator of a cadet CD discussion.

The roles and responsibilities of the CDI is broken down into two areas of responsibilities:

• Assist the chaplain
• Conduct CD discussions for the cadet program

I'm simply saying the two are not related and life would be easier for cadet programs if the second responsibility was given to cadet programs officers who meet certain requirements (as previously discussed). It would also be easier for members who want to focus on the first responsibility to shed something they don't have interest in. Best of both worlds: folks who want to do both can, folks that don't pick one or the other.

Lastly, I know tone is hard to pick up on the internet sometimes. I hope everyone is receiving this in the respectful tone that is intended.

[Brit_in_CAP]

Lastly, I know tone is hard to pick up on the internet sometimes. I hope everyone is receiving this in the respectful tone that is intended.

Good point, and I'm certainly getting the 'positive vibe'.

I may have more on your observations later today but I'm going to take some time to think about that.  Good discussion, I have to say!

[Chappie]

This part isn't may or should:

Provide non-clergy support to assist chaplains in providing ministry to the CAP community.

There's no way I'm assisting anybody, chaplain or otherwise, in providing ministry to the CAP community. It's something I simply cannot and will not do. Now the second sentence you quoted does seem to attempt to backtrack a bit from the first by trying to define "providing ministry" with a bunch of may be this or that. But it's all framed under "providing ministry" and that's religious and not appropriate for me to be anywhere near that type of mission statement.

So, again, why do I need to be providing non-clergy support to assist chaplains in providing ministry to the CAP community when all I want to do is be the adult facilitator of a cadet CD discussion.

The roles and responsibilities of the CDI is broken down into two areas of responsibilities:

• Assist the chaplain
• Conduct CD discussions for the cadet program

I'm simply saying the two are not related and life would be easier for cadet programs if the second responsibility was given to cadet programs officers who meet certain requirements (as previously discussed). It would also be easier for members who want to focus on the first responsibility to shed something they don't have interest in. Best of both worlds: folks who want to do both can, folks that don't pick one or the other.

Lastly, I know tone is hard to pick up on the internet sometimes. I hope everyone is receiving this in the respectful tone that is intended.

First off...I have no issues whatsoever in the tone of your posting.  To be able to interact this way is a good thing.  The Chaplain Corps endeavors to be responsive to the membership...hence many of the sweeping changes that have occurred in recent years.  I can honestly (and joyfully) say that this is not the same Chaplain Corps that I first saw in 1996.   Change does come slow in any organization...but it happens

In reviewing the CAPR 5-4 Publications and Forms Management (13 Jan 15), there are a couple of items that I would like to highlight:

1.Definitions

c. "May" indicates an acceptable or suggested means of accomplishment [nondirective].

i. "Pamphlets" are nondirective, informative, "how-to" type publications that may include suggested methods and techniques for implementing CAP policies.

l. "Regulations" announce policies, direct actions and prescribe standards.

The responsibility of the CDI to teach Character Development is set forth in the following regulations: CAPR 52-16 and CAPR 265-1.

The concern that you have raised is found in the pamphlet and not the regulation.  The pamphlet contains non-directive, suggested methods.  The "assisting the chaplain" is one.  As posted previously, no one is mandating that a CDI be a "chaplain lite".  This provision in the pamphlet gives latitude to those CDIs who desire to take on those type of tasks to do so.  Keep in mind that we have a diversity of members within CAP and within its Chaplain Corps.  There are several CDIs who are either clergy who do not meet the criteria for a Chaplain appointment and lay leaders within their local congregations  who want to do more.  This provides them that opportunity.  If a CDI chooses not to, that is their decision. No harm-no foul.

What I appreciate about CAP is the breadth of opportunities one can delve into the area of Professional Development (21 specialty tracks - I have a Master rating in 3: Cadet Programs; Chaplain; Professional Development; Wilson - #2XXX) and ES (a boat-load of ratings there - hold a Mission Chaplain and Mission Staff Assistant rating).  One can select what area interests them and pursue it.  Providing opportunities to serve our members is vital.  For too long within the Chaplain Corps many of our CDIs felt their hands were tied and they were restricted as to what they could and couldn't do. So that item was included in the pamphlet.   Not everyone in CAP is going to be a historian, testing officer, observer, incident commander, aerospace officer, deputy commander for cadets, finance officer,  wing commander, or a Character Development Instructor.  But every member should have the opportunity to serve where they find a good "fit".

And it is truly a privilege to be able to serve with you in CAP.

[Brit_in_CAP]

The concern that you have raised is found in the pamphlet and not the regulation.  The pamphlet contains non-directive, suggested methods.  The "assisting the chaplain" is one.  As posted previously, no one is mandating that a CDI be a "chaplain lite".  This provision in the pamphlet gives latitude to those CDIs who desire to take on those type of tasks to do so.  Keep in mind that we have a diversity of members within CAP and within its Chaplain Corps.  There are several CDIs who are either clergy who do not meet the criteria for a Chaplain appointment and lay leaders within their local congregations  who want to do more.  This provides them that opportunity.  If a CDI chooses not to, that is their decision. No harm-no foul.

Initially I was of the opinion that the revision didn't allow for proper support to the chaplain, and then I became concerned that the revision mandated such support even if you weren't a CDI desiring to do so.  On balance, and after reading the documents thoroughly, it all works, IMHO.  I am a lay speaker in my denomination, and I decided to remain as a CDI once the revision was complete as it made the track meaningful.  I was also pleased to see that a religious endorsement was no longer mandatory - I know of at least one CAP member who is a committed member of their faith group but who didn't want to seek such endorsement.  With some coaxing we may yet get another CDI as a result.

What I appreciate about CAP is the breadth of opportunities one can delve into the area of Professional Development (21 specialty tracks - I have a Master rating in 3: Cadet Programs; Chaplain; Professional Development; Wilson - #2XXX) and ES (a boat-load of ratings there - hold a Mission Chaplain and Mission Staff Assistant rating).  One can select what area interests them and pursue it.  Providing opportunities to serve our members is vital.  For too long within the Chaplain Corps many of our CDIs felt their hands were tied and they were restricted as to what they could and couldn't do. So that item was included in the pamphlet.   Not everyone in CAP is going to be a historian, testing officer, observer, incident commander, aerospace officer, deputy commander for cadets, finance officer,  wing commander, or a Character Development Instructor.  But every member should have the opportunity to serve where they find a good "fit".

My feelings exactly - to serve is the honor and it matters only that we do so to the best of abilities that we have.  All contributions accepted!

Personally, I'm committed to making the role a success, and I think it will be.

[Fubar]

The concern that you have raised is found in the pamphlet and not the regulation.  The pamphlet contains non-directive, suggested methods.

I completely understand what you're saying here, and this is an issue that extends far beyond being a CDI or cadet programs. We have regulations that say pamphlets are not regulatory, yet you have to follow the pamphlets in order to advance in a speciality track. So it's not required, because it's not in a regulation, but it is required because your leadership expects you to advance.

But I don't want to derail the conversation here (especially since it's been so productive). The chaplain service is by definition religious. The character development sessions are by definition not religious, so having a requirement that one must be a member of the religious chaplain service in order to facilitate non-religious character development sessions does not compute for me. What we can do is make life easier for everyone and remove the chaplain/CDI restriction and move the requirements in-house to cadet programs where we already have qualified personnel. Less paperwork, less admin, less headaches.

If there are enough people who aren't chaplains who still feel very strongly about supporting them as a duty position, then by all means keep all the requirements for a CDI that aren't related to giving CD sessions and move them to a speciality track called chaplain assistant or something. I certainly don't want to take away any opportunities for people to serve in CAP in a way that is meaningful to them. Plus, provided those chaplain assistants meet the cadet programs requirements to lead CD discussions, they can do that too!

I still see it as a win/win, although admittedly it doesn't completely solve the issue with qualified CD facilitators. I'm sure there are plenty of smaller squadrons who don't have a senior rated CP member.

[Chappie]

Fubar....Appreciate your observations and input.  Knowing that you don't want to derail the conversation...I will not engage and will withhold my comments and thoughts

[Fubar]

By derail, I meant into a patented Captalk rabbit hole™ about pamphlets vs regulations. I'm still interested in the cost/benefit analysis of moving the qualification of senior members who can facilitate CD discussions from HC to CP and making the process streamlined while reducing administrative requirements.

[lordmonar]

By derail, I meant into a patented Captalk rabbit hole™ about pamphlets vs regulations. I'm still interested in the cost/benefit analysis of moving the qualification of senior members who can facilitate CD discussions from HC to CP and making the process streamlined while reducing administrative requirements.

Baby steps.

When CD was ML....it was the baby of HC....and MLO's were considered demi-chaplains and were de=facto chaplain assistance officers.
CP and HC fought over them for years.   Getting HC to change the name was a major step in the right direction.
Removing the religious affiliation requirements and the college study requirements is a giant step forward.

The next step is to get non-religious affiliated CP officers  into the CD positions and help crank that oyster open just a little bit.

I'm working on my application now. 

[LSThiker]

I'm working on my application now. 

I am putting serious consideration in doing so as well.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Lord, why does your last message reminds me of the Patton movie scene where Gen Bradley is just transferred to Gen Patton's staff in the desert scene? The scene where Gen Patton is just arriving to take command after the Kasserine battle?

[Chappie]

By derail, I meant into a patented Captalk rabbit hole™ about pamphlets vs regulations. I'm still interested in the cost/benefit analysis of moving the qualification of senior members who can facilitate CD discussions from HC to CP and making the process streamlined while reducing administrative requirements.

Baby steps.

When CD was ML....it was the baby of HC....and MLO's were considered demi-chaplains and were de=facto chaplain assistance officers.
CP and HC fought over them for years.   Getting HC to change the name was a major step in the right direction.
Removing the religious affiliation requirements and the college study requirements is a giant step forward.

The next step is to get non-religious affiliated CP officers  into the CD positions and help crank that oyster open just a little bit.

I'm working on my application now. 

I could say a lot here but it would just muddy the waters...but it has taken a while for the role/responsibility of the CDI to be defined/clarified, etc. and in the process there have been many misconceptions and perceptions which hopefully have been addressed in the regulation changes and the specialty track.

The name change came about in 2007 by the NEC -- not the HC  (thanks for giving us credit, though    ) -- to have the ML program reflect the name of CD used at the USAF academy (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/2007_Nov_NEC.pdf).    There was also an underlying reason as CAP was putting its program into the public schools --- and Moral Leadership...well...not a selling point.  Whereas Character Development had a better ring.

You will find, as a whole, that the majority of the Chaplain Corps personnel are accommodating and are working to improve our service to the membership of CAP in all areas.  There are a few areas where it is high visibility or under the microscope for the Chaplain Corps...but we are here to serve.

As mentioned in a previous post, the Chaplain Corps has undergone significant changes since 2005 -- though one thing hasn't changed and that is our commitment to provide Character Development to our cadets -- which is evident in the recent changes to the reg and the release of the 225 specialty track. 

[Brit_in_CAP]

This is an interesting discussion....as a minimum we seem to be on track to acquire 3 more CDIs with significant experience in CAP and a willingness to use that and their life experiences to provide quality CD sessions to our cadets....sounds like a winner to me! :clap:

The CAP Chaplain branch has undergone significant and much needed change in the past few years, and Chappie has been in the middle of that.  He and I have known each other for a while    and his commitment and drive impress me.  I hope he'll agree with me when I write that, in my opinion, the Chaplain branch of both the USAF and CAP will undergo further significant change over the next few years.  I think that's inevitable, and even desirable, as organizations that fail to change inevitably fail.  It doesn't happen instantly but a good start is, as we've seen here, when people of experience and skill make both available to our cadets in what has, in the past, been an underserved program.

(if Chappie doesn't agree, I'm sure he'll let me know.... )

What won't change, I hope, is our commitment to provide a quality CD program to our cadets.  Young people of their age *need* that space to discuss and challenge accepted ideas, and that is increasingly denied to them in other spheres.  Educators, in the broadest use of the word, are worried that challenging someone over their thinking will lead to complaints and the audience gets all upset when they are challenged to defend their thinking.  It all leads to a much poorer society in general.  Combined with the rest of CP, and the other opportunities that CAP offers, I think the CD program enhances the abilities of our youngsters greatly.  Hopefully, when they leave us for the wide and scary world, irrespective of what they do and where they do it, we'll have helped to equip them to lead lives of good quality that add values to their communities.  If even a handful of our former cadets start by putting "we" before 'me" we'll have scored a huge victory!

I may not have the best set of words here but I have run out of time so I'll 'post' at this point!  Happy Thursday all round!

[Chappie]

By derail, I meant into a patented Captalk rabbit hole™ about pamphlets vs regulations. I'm still interested in the cost/benefit analysis of moving the qualification of senior members who can facilitate CD discussions from HC to CP and making the process streamlined while reducing administrative requirements.

From my perspective:  the Chaplain Corps and the Cadet Programs have a very good working relationship and are working together to provide the best for our cadets in their personal and professional training.

[Ned]

From my perspective:  the Chaplain Corps and the Cadet Programs have a very good working relationship and are working together to provide the best for our cadets in their personal and professional training.

Wholeheartedly agree.

Ned Lee
National Cadet Programs Manager

[Brit_in_CAP]

By derail, I meant into a patented Captalk rabbit hole™ about pamphlets vs regulations. I'm still interested in the cost/benefit analysis of moving the qualification of senior members who can facilitate CD discussions from HC to CP and making the process streamlined while reducing administrative requirements.

From my perspective:  the Chaplain Corps and the Cadet Programs have a very good working relationship and are working together to provide the best for our cadets in their personal and professional training.

Absolutely!!  :clap: :clap: