Sexual Assault against CAP cadet in Florida by USAFR LTC?

[AngelWings]

I was checking my eServices and doing my safety when I saw some announcement about this. A pretty sad story. What makes it worse is that it wasn't a CAP member doing the crime, but a USAFR Lieutenant Colonel who was not a CAP member.

[a2capt]

Not sure it's worse just because of who and their job position .. if proven true, it's bad. Period. Until then...

[Eclipse]

NHQ just sent an email to the "all" list.

It was all over the news this AM.

[Dad2-4]

Hopefully everyone on CT will refrain from speculating and gossiping. Bad situation for all involved. Let the FACTS come out with proper investigation and let the courts decide guilt or innocence.

[Cool Mace]

Hopefully everyone on CT will refrain from speculating and gossiping. Bad situation for all involved. Let the FACTS come out with proper investigation and let the courts decide guilt or innocence.

I would like to echo that. No one here knows the facts, and there's no need to speculate what may or may not happen.

[Garibaldi]

  til all the facts are in.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Interesting...did not get this NHQ email.

[vento]

Interesting...did not get this NHQ email.

http://dqkjwx3xr6pzf.cloudfront.net/c177024/CAPCC_to_CAP_Members.pdf

[Extremepredjudice]

I think I may have met this dude... 

[AngelWings]

I would like to say that my intention for this post was not to stir the crap kettle on the situation, but to post that the situation as it has been reported thus far. I was also hoping that we'd have an adult conversation about how something like this could have been prevented (saying that it did happen) and to bring factual info as it is reported.

I apologize if anyone took this post to be the intentional starting of gossip or rumors about the situation.

[EMT-83]

Really?

[NIN]

Without all the facts of the case before us, at this point it is probably unhelpful to speculate or suggest what changes could be made to the Cadet Protection Policy.  This would be like making suggestions to change CAPR 60-1 before anybody knows what caused the aircraft crash (almost before they removed the wreckage).

The Cadet Protection Policy has been around for 20 years, and I submit to you that it probably has reduced the incidence of cadet abuse substantially in that time.  Has it eliminated it? No. No more so than the safety regulations have eliminated accidents. 

This incident notwithstanding, remember that the CPP is a black and white document.  What it should implement and guide, however, is a culture. (just like a "safety culture" really).

- While our members are screened, that screening only eliminates people who have already been caught;
- The CPP is (supposed to be) universal.  If a commander in Wing/Group/Squadron A says "Sorry, have to cancel the overnight activity because we only have one SM to supervise," that same circumstance in Wing/Group/Squadron B should result in a similar cancellation, not "Well, its OK this one time."  (Having been in two wings, I can tell you that can be the case: what would never fly in a unit in my first wing was considered SOP in the second wing)
- Everybody (parents, cadets & members) need to be very cognizant of the policy and its reporting requirements.  Parents & Cadets, in particular, should be aware of the Standards of Leadership such that an activity outside the bounds of the CPP will not go unnoticed or unreported by anybody involved. 
- While we can protect our cadets "while on our time," it is difficult for the organization (and I speak as a retired CAP guy and current Army Cadets guy with a similar, if not matching, Cadet Protection Policy) to protect our cadets when they are -not- on CAP time from people who are -not- CAP members.  My personal opinion here: if you have trained and oriented your cadets, parents & members correctly, then even on "non-CAP time" they will (hopefully) recognize and react to potential abuse situations no matter who is involved.

The current CPP (as published) suggests all these things, although I don't think it is as strongly worded as it could be. Nor is it quite as comprehensive as it could be.   

But if a Squadron/Group/Wing (Company/Battalion) has built a CPP culture up correctly, then behavior outside the bounds of that policy sticks out like a sore thumb. 

If mom knows how the organization's cadet protection policy works, then when Lt Potential Weirdo shows up to pick her daughter up for the "conference" she didn't know about, alone in his POV, and she's seen no permission slip or similar documentation from the unit, like a flyer or a post on the unit's website or calendar, there should be a warning flag. 

If LT Straight Arrow understand the CPP correctly, when MAJ I.M. Aflake holds 30 minute closed-door one-on-one counseling sessions with all the female cadets in the unit (and not with the male cadets), the LT should be able to say "Hey, uh, this isn't right.." to someone.

When Cadet Quirky gets invited to SM Stranger's house for "movie night," the Cadet should be able to think "Hey, this might not be correct."  (when 10 of the units cadets are there, and three officers, and the movie is "October Sky" or "Black Sky: Winning the X-Prize," ok, maybe thats different. But when SM Stranger's wife is out of town, and she's the only person being invited... Yeah, "red flag!")

I think that organizations don't do a good job of building this particular culture.

[sarmed1]

Hopefully everyone on CT will refrain from speculating and gossiping. Bad situation for all involved. Let the FACTS come out with proper investigation and let the courts decide guilt or innocence.

and this is what happens almost without fail here on CT?.....any topic appears to be fair game sooner or later;  A/C mishap,  mandated wing stand down, alleged hazing incidents, IG investigations..... the list goes on and on.  No matter the abstract "adult conversation" intentention that any of these news worthy (or the not so news worthy) events are posted about it always degenerates to speculation/rumoring/otherwise posting ones personal positive or negative opinion with or without basis of fact or first hand knowledge or command initiated justifications/explanations. 

Discussion of any type of incident even without the facts (or all of the facts) still makes your "what if" brain engage to the point that some level of brainstorming develops.  So what if it turned out to not be as bad as first reported, if any of the ensuing discussion makes you take pause and even consider looking at putting steps into place in your local area to prevent/mitigate a similar "issue" from occuring, I think that discussion is acceptable. 

2 cents
mk

[Flying Pig]

Good grief.....

I would say the Cadet Protection Policy is more than adequate to protect cadets.  Somewhere, somehow the system worked because its now being investigated.  Just because there is an allegation doesnt mean there was a failure.  The entire legal system is set up to deal with people who know how to circumvent the rules that are in place.  The system is in place to deal with this, Cadet Protection, UCMJ, State Laws, Federal Laws.  Let it work and be done with it until its run its course. 

[Luis R. Ramos]

If a commander in Wing/Group/Squadron A says "Sorry, have to cancel the overnight activity because we only have one SM to supervise," that same circumstance in Wing/Group/Squadron B should result in a similar cancellation, not "Well, its OK this one time."  (Having been in two wings, I can tell you that can be the case: what would never fly in a unit in my first wing was considered SOP in the second wing)

Unfortunately, this will continue as long as the culture or belief that many members have of not following the regulations as posted, whether they have holes or not, is old, etc.

To witness, CAPM 39-1. "Oh, this publication has holes in it the size of trucks, the intention of NHQ was to award a medal for NRA participation in the Marksmanship program, we will allow wear of the medal even if it is for a different program than what was awarded initially."

Every senior member should practice following CAPR regs, manuals, etc without changes or individual interpretation, otherwise everything is weakened.

Flyer

[NIN]

Culturally speaking, what you're saying is we don't correctly reinforce non-compliance with published directives.

Honestly, in some instances the IG should investigate clear violations of directives to ascertain who knew what and when. If LT Joe Pilot breaks the plane doing something against the rules and it comes out that his chain of command knew he was doing whatever broke the plane but did not want to say anything, then fire/discipline all of them.

If the group commander knew one of his unit commanders was looking the other way on one of his officers and an inappropriate relationship with a cadet, and did not take action because the unit commander is his buddy, then the group commander and the unit commander are jeapordizing their memberships on the officer with poor judgement. The guy gets busted by the cops, then everybody who failed their duty to uphold the rules needs to go.

[umpirecali]

I believe the directive was to not discuss this externally or internally. The third post should have been the last post

[Garibaldi]

How about we lock this thread then? But that won't stop a new one from being done.

[NIN]

I believe the directive was to not discuss this externally or internally. The third post should have been the last post

So yeah, hehe, I didn't even see the directive.

[AirDX]

Personally I think a little glasnost goes a long way in reminding all of us that CPP is there for a reason, that things can indeed happen, and we need to be on guard for our own and our cadet's best interest.

Even individuals in positions of high authority and trust run afoul of the rules, for example:

Army general charged with sodomy, inappropriate relationships with female subordinates

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/army-general-charged-sodomy-inappropriate-relationships-female-subordinates-article-1.1169314#ixzz27uGqOJVL

So it's a reminder that in our ranks, things CAN happen, and the risk is real.  I'm glad I saw it here, becasue I did not get the e-mail that supposedly went out to all CAP.  Speculation and rumor are counterproductive, so let's all avoid THAT.

[Walkman]

While we should heed the directive about discussions, I believe we can use this incident to remind ourselves of why there's CPP in the first place, and give our AoR a once over in that respect.

NIN, your first post about culture was really a good place to start me thinking. The right culture, relationships and epsrit d' corps can go a long way to help prevent these situations.

[RogueLeader]

It ended up in my junk box about 415 local this morning. You might want to check there.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I finally got it in the early am yesterday.

[O-Rex]

I knew this guy: we weren't 'buds' but we'd run into each other when I was a group commander because FLWG used to time commander's calls with cadet events, which he was usually in attendance.  He had some kind of venture with cigars in Tampa, cuz he always bright stogies to WingConfs, he'd pass them around and we'd literally 'smoke & joke.'

He just seemed like a regular guy: sometimes you just can't tell.  Nonetheless this is a black eye all-around.

[Johnny Yuma]

Actually, I think this incident is proof that the CPP was never intended to protect cadets but only the organization.

The CPP only covers CAP members, period. It stands mute on protecting cadets from any other source of abuse other than CAP members. It gives members zero guidance on what should be done if a member witnesses or believes a cadet is being abused by members of the .mil, .gov, private individuals not affiliated with CAP or even family members whether it be during a CAP activity or otherwise.

In this case, the offender was a USAFR field grade. CPP doesn't apply. The only reason we're hearing about this is the media attention NHQ can't throw off and the letter from NHQ pretty much says so.

Why is this? Simple. Members abusing cadets brings liability to the organization. Anyone else beating or molesting our cadets doesn't, which is why we have no policy protecting cadets from that form of abuse. You'll notice in the letter that NHQ states if anyone has any information regarding this incident to take it to the law, not them.

If NHQ was truly interested in protecting cadets, it would create an anti abuse policy that covers ALL situations involving our kids, not just who the lawyers want to protect, even if it means opening us up for for liability. If that means we help protect more kids from similar situations, then so be it!

[Garibaldi]

Actually, I think this incident is proof that the CPP was never intended to protect cadets but only the organization.

The CPP only covers CAP members, period. It stands mute on protecting cadets from any other source of abuse other than CAP members. It gives members zero guidance on what should be done if a member witnesses or believes a cadet is being abused by members of the .mil, .gov, private individuals not affiliated with CAP or even family members whether it be during a CAP activity or otherwise.

In this case, the offender was a USAFR field grade. CPP doesn't apply. The only reason we're hearing about this is the media attention NHQ can't throw off and the letter from NHQ pretty much says so.

Why is this? Simple. Members abusing cadets brings liability to the organization. Anyone else beating or molesting our cadets doesn't, which is why we have no policy protecting cadets from that form of abuse. You'll notice in the letter that NHQ states if anyone has any information regarding this incident to take it to the law, not them.

If NHQ was truly interested in protecting cadets, it would create an anti abuse policy that covers ALL situations involving our kids, not just who the lawyers want to protect, even if it means opening us up for for liability. If that means we help protect more kids from similar situations, then so be it!

Hm. Makes a bit of sense now. Anything taking place out of the scope of CAP authority, CAP is not responsible for. Anyone outside the scope of CAP responsibility and authority, CAP is not responsible for. For instance:

Parental abuse
Bullying at school
Abuse by teachers
Abuse by military
Abuse by government
Abuse by members of non-CAP peer organizations (BSA, GSA, etc)

It does make sense that CPP does not protect the cadet but the organization from harm such as lawsuits and bad publicity. I mean, all a cadet has to do is make an accusation against a SM and that SM is pretty much history. At the very least the SM's reputation is completely shot. Having an accusation of abuse, unfounded or real, hanging over your head...it's hard to get any work done.

I'm not making light of this at all. It is a very serious matter. JM is right; we do need a more comprehensive policy that protects not only cadets, but seniors as well. There is very little we can do as members to intervene in the above mentioned abuse scenarios except pass along our suspicions or whatever proof we have to the proper authorities, CAP or otherwise.

It's a tough road.

[wuzafuzz]

The policy is fine.  It does a good job of protecting cadets.  I would change "should" to "must" in this line:
"Senior members, cadets, and parents/guardians should immediately report incidents of observed or suspected abuse to the unit commander or commander at the next higher level of command."   It makes no difference if the suspected abuser is a CAP member or not.  Report it.

Other portions of the policy present reasonable requirements and protections for cadets as well as CAP. 

The policy requires 2 "approved" senior members at overnight cadet activities, it recommends 2 senior members at all cadet activities (with a few exceptions), and requires an "approved" senior member be present at all times when cadets interact with non-CAP members at CAP activities.  The policy also acknowledges mandatory reporting requirements that may exists outside of CAP.

What else should the policy include? 

[Eclipse]

The CPP protects everyone in CAP.

Make no mistake, while we can't protect our cadets from everything and everyone, we are certainly responsible for situations where people are in contact with our cadets because of CAP, or in a CAP context.

In this case several articles mention that some of the alleged abuse occurred during a conference(s), if these were CAP activities, the staff and leaders should have been more diligent.  A cadet, regardless of age, has no business staying alone with a non-member adult in a hotel room, etc.

For some reason, some members get the idea that members of the military, especially the USAF, have some sort of special force powers over CAP members.  They don't, and are subject to the same "non-member" rules as everyone else.

[Smokey]

Having been a cop for 40 years I can say that you cannot protect cadets from everything in the world.  We can only try to provide a reasonable attempt while they are involved in CAP activities.  CAPNHQ & the lawyers are not ducking the issue, but there is no way CAP could prevent all instances of abuse nor should they or individual CAP members be responsible for issues outside of their control.

If a cadet meets a non CAP pilot at an airshow the cadet is working and a week later the cadet meets the pilot at the pilot's house to "learn more about flying" and is abused, is CAP responsible?  There is no way CAP can prevent this. 
Child predators will find ways no matter how many policies are put in place.  It is the nature of the beast. 

[EMT-83]

You need a regulation to tell you to report a crime against a cadet?

[lordmonar]

CPP is like Safety......yes we want to make sure that are people are safe....but "real reason" why you right the regulation is to protect the organisation from law suits for "not doing enough to prevent this from happeing".

Now you can be a cynic like Johnny Yuma and take that to bank and say that the organisation is ONLY concerned about protecting the organisation........but that is not true and he knows it.

[AngelWings]

I think there should be a bit more in the CPP about teaching cadets to know when they are subject towards someones command or not. It's different in CAP compared to the regular joe world.

In the regular joe world, it doesn't matter what someones says (excluding Mr. and Mrs. Legal Capital-Punishment IE your parents and those who have actual authority), you do not have to listen to them and there is no huge punishment for telling them to screw off. In CAP, cadets are always following the CoC, and when someone is a FG officer, there is a huge misconception that they have a huge amount of authority over you.

Basically, you need to tell cadets that they're not subject to military officers commands unless otherwise stated by a CAP officer for something along the lines of a class or some form of training. Same goes for ANYONE in the military, since cadets generally take "CAP is not the military" to mean that "the military outranks CAP and that CAP is subject to military orders".

It wouldn't be a huge change, and for any intelligent cadet, they should already know this. However, you have little kids in CAP who are extremely impressionable to whatever they're told and do assume a great deal.

[lordmonar]

I agree that we need some sort of CPP for all cadets and all parents.....so that they know when and how to report things.

[spaatzmom]

The CPP protects everyone in CAP.

Make no mistake, while we can't protect our cadets from everything and everyone, we are certainly responsible for situations where people are in contact with our cadets because of CAP, or in a CAP context.

In this case several articles mention that some of the alleged abuse occurred during a conference(s), if these were CAP activities, the staff and leaders should have been more diligent.  A cadet, regardless of age, has no business staying alone with a non-member adult in a hotel room, etc.

For some reason, some members get the idea that members of the military, especially the USAF, have some sort of special force powers over CAP members.  They don't, and are subject to the same "non-member" rules as everyone else.

There have not been any CAP conferences in Brevard County( info from articles),  the last east coast conferences we had in the early 2000's were in Daytona Beach and Fort Lauderdale.  There have been numerous events held in Brevard County over the years but not in the time frame that the articles state that I am aware of, but since 2010 that could have changed a bit even though they tend to be annual events held at generally the same time of year each year.

[Eclipse]

There have not been any CAP conferences in Brevard County( info from articles),  the last east coast conferences we had in the early 2000's were in Daytona Beach and Fort Lauderdale.  There have been numerous events held in Brevard County over the years but not in the time frame that the articles state that I am aware of, but since 2010 that could have changed a bit even though they tend to be annual events held at generally the same time of year each year.

The most casual search of the names involved will bring up plenty of photos in this regard.

[spaatzmom]

There have not been any CAP conferences in Brevard County( info from articles),  the last east coast conferences we had in the early 2000's were in Daytona Beach and Fort Lauderdale.  There have been numerous events held in Brevard County over the years but not in the time frame that the articles state that I am aware of, but since 2010 that could have changed a bit even though they tend to be annual events held at generally the same time of year each year.

The most casual search of the names involved will bring up plenty of photos in this regard.

Not sure just what photos you are referring to, but even on his fb page there is nothing out of the ordinary.  I was pointing out that the "conferences" mentioned in numerous articles, all googled, were not CAP conferences as the wing conf is in Feb and up through last year were held in counties other than what the articles specified for dates.  I have attended every wing conference in Fl. since 2000.

[NIN]

NIN, your first post about culture was really a good place to start me thinking. The right culture, relationships and epsrit d' corps can go a long way to help prevent these situations.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

(long post follows, if you have ADD, step away)

Thats my point all along: culturally speaking, there are a few things at work here.

Professionalism & Leadership

If the correct culture is in place, relations between cadets and adult officers/NCOs absolutely must remain at a professional level. Always. Always.

That does not mean that I expect my cadets to stand at attention and call me "Sir!" when they run into me at the mall. But I do expect that any interactions we have outside the unit are respectful and based on the relationship (officer-cadet) that we already have _at_ the unit. 

When I was on active duty, if I ran into one of my officers at the Shoppette on a Saturday and we were both in civvies, I didn't say "Hey, there, Joe, how's it hanging?"  I might say "Hi, sir, whats the good word?" or "Whats up, sir?"  Why? Because come Monday, he's still the LT and I'm still the PFC.   I mean, yeah, we were always on a first name basis: He called me "Private" and I called him "Lieutenant." Easy, right?

The bottom line there is that as a commander, I expected and required that I and my officers & NCOs  comport ourselves in a professional fashion around the troops.  Plain and simple: Its called "leadership." We must exercise it around our subordinates.  That means professional behavior both in and out of uniform. And "leadership" is incumbent upon the leaders, not the subordinates.

Familiarity Breeds Contempt

Continuing in that vein, remember this phrase: "Familiarity breeds contempt."  You will be tested on this material later..

Lets define that phrase a little bit.

Familiarity.  What kind of familiarity?

• First name basis between officer & cadet?
• At the commander's house for dinner on Sundays?
• Watch the testing officer's kids when him & the wife are at the movies?
• Dating Cadet Jones' mom?
• Sneaking a beer at the battalion commander's place?
• Inappropriate access to personal activities/info?
• Overshare on the Internet?
• Possible sexual talk/contact? (email, chat, phone, Facebook, outside of cadetting meetings)

Remember, as I suggested above:  the end of the day, this is as much a leadership exercise (as in "standards of leadership") as anything else. 

Think about what constitutes "fraternization" or "inappropriate relations" (and thus, a high degree of familiarity) between officers & enlisted in the military. 

Now think about what constitutes "inappropriate relations" between teacher/officer and student/cadet.  (and think of it in that context, too, the "teacher/coach/leader" and "student/player/follower." There are legal definitions of these roles, too, especially pertains to criminal sexual conduct.)

So now lets talk about the second part: "contempt."

Contempt. For what? (just in this context, even)

• Authority (duly appointed/constituted. Legal. Community)
• The rules.
• The organization.
• You.
• Other officers.
• Good order and discipline.
• Other cadets.

You name it. 

We need to avoid becoming unduly familiar with our cadets.  They are our charges, not members of our social circles, peer group or "dating targets."

That doesn't mean that you don't know them or their parents or whatever, or perhaps have contact with them in a social setting.

It means you're maintaining a professional level of relationship and discourse thru your interactions with them, whether that is in-person, via email, over the phone, or on Facebook (more on this in a minute).

I think if you go back and look at most situations like the one at hand, you will see repeated instances where the "leader" or "teacher" failed to uphold their standards of leadership and forgot their role.  Plain and simple.

Leadership in Social Media

Its no surprise that I'm a Facebook fan. It facilitates any number of things. It also creates tons of headaches.  However, like email, text messaging and such, it is a communication tool. Really, its not much more than that with a bunch of flashy crap bolted on.

The subject of "How can I maintain a professional situation with my cadets on Facebook?" is in and of itself a completely different thread. Suffice to say, it can be done and it *must* be done if you're to retain any sense of credibility and leadership.  But it requires that people keep their wits about them, and set themselves up for success and not be "stupid on the Internet." 

For example: if a cadet or other subordinate sends me a friend request on Facebook, they go right into my "Limited Profile" group. They can see that I exist, some fairly minor info about me, but 99% of my FB info available to my "friends," including photo uploads, daily status updates, etc, is not available to my Limited Profile. 

Even with that in place, I am also careful to not post things, generally, that are not "cadet friendly" or appropriate for subordinates. (Heck, just the other day, I reposted a neat photo from a FB group called "I [expletive] Love Science!" I did so without linking back to the original group due to the expletive because thats not how I roll on FB.  Anybody who knows me knows that the particular expletive in question and I are really good friends, but not in front of the troops. Ever.)

In this way, I keep the familiarity aspect via FB down to an absolute minimum. Oddly enough, I can usually see *everything* my cadets are doing via their FB accounts, even though they can't see my activities, so it provides yet another "leadership window" into the goings on of cadets.

The downside, of course, is the people who just cannot, or will not, get it, no matter what.

There is an officer I am familiar with who posts all manner of crapola on Facebook: political memes, photos of cadet-inappropirate stuff, really interesting inappropriate personal overshare items, etc. Cadets can see it all and are always commenting on these things. Hell, I'm not even a friend and I can see all of it.  And I cringe when I see it. Why? Because it sets a bad example for other officers, it erodes cadet's confidence in their officers and sets us up for unduly familiar relations between cadets and officers/NCOs.

Even worse: it creates a baseline among other officers that cause them to reset their expectation to the "new normal".  Bad news.

But getting back to the cultural aspects of this for a minute.

If our cadet protection culture is properly built and maintained by _everybody_, the incidents like the one at hand seldom are allowed to happen and continue because the behavior sticks out like a sore thumb.

example: Permission slips. CPP already suggests their use. How many units actually _use_ them in the manner suggested?  When mom & dad are used to filling out a permission slip for every activity, when their cadet suddenly is going on an overnight activity 'sans permission slip', mom & dad would hopefully go "Hey, uh, wait a second here?"

Regular parental briefings and communciations.  The CPP already suggests their use.  Are you doing them? Much like the permissions slips, if the unit has a calendar and way to keep moms & dads in the loop, then a "sudden conference" or something that does not come from unit's leadership is a red flag.

If the unit's standards of leadership are high, then going on an overnight trip with one officer would seems so far out of the ordinary that a question would be raised by either the cadet, the parents, or another officer.

For the most part, the rules are already there.  Do they need adjustments? Maybe. Do they need to ensure that they're being followed?  Definitely.

I'm telling you: people would be more on the ball about following the rules on some of these items if someone got rather publically flogged and made an example of for not following the rules.  I'm just saying...

[RADIOMAN015]

It's very sad to see these type of incidents happen.

I'm not sure if we really need any more regulations on cadet protection -- Those adults involved in sexual misconduct with children have crafted their methods over many years.  Having seen this happen personally while serving in the USAF with one peers and direct supervisor's children, by a hospital commander, who was a medical doctor with a specialty in pediatrics, was especially disturbing to me

You know it's interesting as to what the National Commander's letter DID NOT state.

RM 

[Garibaldi]

NIN made an interesting point about Facebook and social media. I had resisted adding any of my squadron members, even seniors, as friends. I have a wide variety of views on every subject being posted by my friends. I kind of wanted to keep "church and state" separate. I decided to go ahead and acknowledge their existence and friend them. I made a wide, sweeping status update that warned them that there would be a lot of objectionable material being posted either by me or my friends. I do not censor myself, except in person.

Then, I realized that not all the stuff my radical friends were posting showed up on MY timeline, just the stuff I wrote, which made it tons easier on me.

I do not chat with the cadets. I do not comment much on anything they post, and when I do, I keep it general. I especially do not comment on pictures they post of themselves, regardless of what it is.  Group photos or photos of events, yes.

In the end, I just keep it user-friendly, as if I am having a conversation in person with an audience. No radical viewpoints, not a whole lot of swearing (and now that I know how to keep folks on a limited profile-viewer, they're going to go on that ASAP), and absolutely NO sexual content. Period. I don't want to be "that guy" anymore than you do. It's far too easy now for someone to go back and see stuff you have posted since you joined Facebook or MySpace (does that even exist anymore?) and retroactively get offended. None of us really needs to take that chance.

[Eclipse]

The only way to "win" social media is "not to play".

Considering that all you are doing is becoming a more valuable product for marketers, the risk / reward benefit is simply
not favorable.

Many will say "but I connected with my high-school buddies, blah, blah".  If they were that important, yo would have found them some other way.

"Social Media" is about nothing but narcissim and the cult of personality.  There are other, better ways to communicate with people who
are actually real friends and family.

[Майор Хаткевич]

But if I don't have a FB, then any employer will think I DO have one, it's super private, and I'm hiding something...

[Eclipse]

But if I don't have a FB, then any employer will think I DO have one, it's super private, and I'm hiding something...

Wives tale.

[Майор Хаткевич]

But if I don't have a FB, then any employer will think I DO have one, it's super private, and I'm hiding something...

Wives tale.

Nuh uh! The internet said so!

[Eclipse]

Nuh uh! The internet said so!

Bon Jour?

[Nathan]

Actually, there could be some truth to that. These days, the concept of a young person not having a Facebook sort of causes the same reaction as if I were to hear that someone doesn't own a television or watch anything. I don't judge them harshly for it, but people in my generation have to make a decision NOT to use Facebook, since the social media presence is now default. I wouldn't be shocked to believe that as my generation starts to infiltrate the role of employer, we'll see a lot more raised eyebrows when someone doesn't have a Facebook or something similar.

[NIN]

I didn't intend for this to get off on a "Social Media Is Bad, Mmmkay?" tangent.  Bob's position on social media, specifically Facebook, is as well known as RM's position on CAP members. 

My point is that to some extent, you _NEED_ that engagement to know/see what is going on.

How do you know that one of your officers is inappropriately conducting himself on FB?  As I mentioned before, I have seen what appears to be unduly familiar commentary on an officer's photos on FB from cadets, and while I'm pretty sure there is nothing going on in this case (distance) that would be a CPP issue, its still not what I would call "appropriate behavior for an officer" and were I this officer's commander, I would be having a conversation with him about it.

Remember: Adults are expected to avoid even the appearance of impropriety as it pertains to cadet protection.

In my first wing (where I started as  a cadet), CPP was pretty serious.  In the early 1990s, the wing had taken to checking out people to teach Level I and CPP ("certified Level I instructor"), so I went thru the certification process and wound up teaching several Level Is each year (on the order of 6-8) for my group. We did not skimp on the case studies, etc.  Matter of fact, it was a maxim that the CPP section would take much longer than NHQ's time estimate and we planned on it.

When I moved to my 2nd wing, I was a little shocked at how little attention was paid to CPP, and in fact, how the attention paid appeared to be "lip service."

I did not contact the local unit before I moved, and just showed up on a Thursday night in blues.  At the end of that first meeting, the unit commander, a Lt Col, says "Hey, can you give Cadet Smith here a ride home?" 

"Uh, excuse me, sir?"

"Well, you said you live right up on the main road out of town. He lives in that apartment complex that is about a quarter of a mile before yours."

"Yessir, I get that, but what about cadet protection?"

"Oh, its OK with his mom.  She's also a senior member, you know.   I usually give him a ride home because nobody else lives up that way, but since you're up there now, can you give him a ride?"

(this is June of 1998, and I remember it like it was yesterday.  Why? Because I was utterly stunned that someone could have as different an interpretation of the CPP from me as this guy did ... Mind you, I almost never got outside of my first wing, let alone my region, so the idea that "the regulations get interpreted differently in different places" was, to me, utterly foreign!)

I remember thinking "Yeah, in most cases where someone is abusing a kid, the abuser's behavior is usually OK with the parents, right up to the point where they discover their kid is being abused. Then its not OK."

Then I remember thinking "Wait, you're a Lt Col and a squadron commander, and not only do you think this is an OK way to go about things, YOU DO IT YOURSELF!"

I politely refused, citing the Cadet Protection Policy. I know I pissed the guy off, but hey, I'm not going to have the very first thing I do in a new wing be a flagrant flaunting of the regulations and possibly put myself in a compromising situation. Remember: "[...]expected to avoid even the appearance of impropriety[...]"

Some years later, I was the commandant of cadets for an encampment in my old wing, nearly 1000 miles by road from where I lived.  One of the cadet staff was from a wing I had to drive thru on my way to the encampment, and we arranged to pick him up near his home.  Earlier in the day, I picked up one of my TAC Officers in that same wing, and then we picked up the cadet.  Cadet's mom and dad were briefed on the transportation plan, supervision, etc.  Encampment commander was briefed on the travel plan, etc.  We exercised two deep leadership the whole time (my 4 year old son kept the cadet well supervised all the way, too).  (we even took this cadet out of the country, but thats another story! LOL )

At that same encampment, however, one of the other TAC Officers showed up to encampment with a female cadet.  In his car.  Solo.

I find this out a day or so later when the XO mentions to me that he spotted the two of them on the highway enroute to the encampment site (when they passed him), and then later when they arrived onsite (hours after he did).  Time to turn the "Impropriety-o-Meter" up to "1".

During the week, I noticed that during unstructured time, this female cadet could be seen talking to this TAC Officer.  I was under the impression that she was one of the cadets from his unit, so it made sense that they knew each other.  I filed it away as "maybe my radar is turned up too high," but thought maybe I need to have a word with him about encampment behavior.  I'd see them chatting a lunch, standing behind the formation at mail call, outside the DFAC, etc.

Then I discover he's not from her unit. Uhhhhh, wait a minute.  We might have a problem here.  My internal "Impropriety-o-Meter" is now up to a "4".

Midweek, after lights out, all the cadet staff are up in the cadet staff barracks (short version: The next day was the cadet commander's 21st birthday, so they were all going to stay up to midnight and wish the cadet commander happy birthday). I walk into the barracks dayroom and there are about a dozen people jammed in a room that is cramped with six.  Sitting on the couch, hip to hip, are the TAC Officer and female cadet.  Nothing overt, after all, they're in a crowded dayroom with others, but the "appearance of impropriety" knob gets turned up more notches.

Well, before we can pursue a counseling of this individual as it relates to cadet protection and his behavior, events conspired that he left encampment early.   Some months later, it comes out that he was engaged in inappropriate relations with more than one female cadet, this cadet being one of them.  He got hucked out of CAP.

I *knew* that guy was trouble, but being from another wing, I was reluctant to go to full-on accusatory mode based on some initial suppositions.   At first I explained away his behavior as "well, she's from his unit."  By the time I'd had evidence to the contrary, it was much later in the encampment, and then he was gone. In retrospect, however, he was very clearly operating outside the bounds of the published CPP and we should have called him on it _on_the_spot_.   Lesson learned.

[Eclipse]

My point is that to some extent, you _NEED_ that engagement to know/see what is going on.

No one "needs" that engagement - they choose to have it / allow it.

How do you know that one of your officers is inappropriately conducting himself on FB?

That's a circular argument - like the other 99.9999% of "real life" - you find out when you find out.
FB isn't designed nor intented to be the "stupid police".


Granted FB is a handy way to detect stupid, however I can't begin to imagine wasting the calories to be poking aorund people's
mundane updates hoping to catch the occasional uncool thing.  BTDT back in the day, moved on quickly.

People who both do dumb / bad things, and are stupid enough to post them publicly, are not exactly rocket scientists to begin with, so catching them isn't going to require Monk.  Last week on the way from ORD to LAS, some goof in front of me was using his smartiPhone to update his "friends"
about how awesome Vegas would be...while handing the gate agent an old boarding pass...which then meant we all had to stand there waiting
for an already late flight while he dug frantically for a good pass.  Here's a tip, Goober, delete the FB app and download the United app with your board pass on it. 

Or that goof last week who stole the iPad from TSA and then wasn't even smart enough to wipe it and got busted on camera with a locater app. 

In the case we're discussing, there was nothing to indicate an issue on FB, anyway.

[NIN]

In the case we're discussing, there was nothing to indicate an issue on FB, anyway.

Thats true.

And your point is a good one: We're not about to police the local coffee shop, library, mall, etc, so why FB?

I just didn't want this to get off in the weeds as it pertained to FB.  Used to be the joke was "Oh, all the creepers are hanging out on the playground." Well, 30 years later, the "playground" in that meme is now "Facebook." Some people have legit business there (albeit not business you believe should be conducted.. noted), some people are using it as a conduit for access.  A little harder to distinguish.

[Eclipse]

FB, Twitter, whatever - if it makes you happy or makes you money, knock yourself out.

I don't see that ever happening for me.  I have to be aware and knowledgeable of it for various reasons, but that's the end for me.