Senior member and cadet requirememnt

[pbarden]

Not sure where to look in the regulations, but I'm looking for a regulation that says seniors are or are not needed at any CAP activity. I don't think this is the case but I'd really like to be sure. We're looking to have a squadron (encampment) training day and were debating weather a senior member has to be there. It's not mandatory, but then it came around if it was a regulation or not and where we could find it. Any answers or guesses as to where I can find such a regulation?

[SarDragon]

From CAPR 52-16 (emphasis mine):

2-1. Adult Supervision. Adult CAP members support cadets as mentors, instructors, supervisors, chaperones and in countless other roles. The success of a cadet unit is largely a function of the quality of the adult leadership.
a. Role of Adult Leaders. A critical duty of adult leaders is to keep cadets safe by monitoring their conduct, following operational risk management (ORM) principles and exercising sound judgment. Unit commanders will take all reasonable measures necessary to protect cadets from harm while under CAP supervision. Senior members will be present at all activities involving cadets. Detailed position descriptions for the senior staff are suggested in CAPP 216, Cadet Program Officers' Handbook and Specialty Track Study Guide. CAPP 52-15, Cadet Staff Handbook, also discusses the senior / cadet leadership relationship. For guidance on the Cadet Protection Policy, see CAPR 52-10, CAP Cadet Protection Policy, and the cadet protection training materials available at capmembers.com/cppt.

No option there.

[Lord of the North]

Also refer to CAPR 52-10 for the Cadet Protection Policy on Senior Members at cadet activities.

[EMT-83]

If the CP seniors didn't know the answer to this, they've got some 'splaining to do.

[a2capt]

A bunch of kids can get together and do something. No problem.

Cadets need to have SM involvement, and the activity needs to be sanctioned.

IOW, if you all are going to the paint ball range, you're not cadets, and that's not a sanctioned activity.

That means parents are not expecting it to be a CAP event.

[PHall]

I think you can safely say that an Encampment Preperation Class would be an CAP activity.

[Storm Chaser]

This is the type of things you should be discussing with your squadron leadership, and by leadership I mean deputy commander for cadets or squadron commander. In this case, the regulations are clear. But regardless, you shouldn't be planning any type of CAP activity or gathering without their approval and support.

[Garibaldi]

A bunch of kids can get together and do something. No problem.

Cadets need to have SM involvement, and the activity needs to be sanctioned.

IOW, if you all are going to the paint ball range, you're not cadets, and that's not a sanctioned activity.

That means parents are not expecting it to be a CAP event.

I seem to have read somewhere that regardless of whether or not it is a sanctioned CAP activity, when more than 3 cadets get together to do something, it is a CAP activity, regardless. I may be thinking of an outdated "rule", but if you take several cadets who want to go paintballing on their own, it is still considered a CAP activity because they are all members, even in mixed CAP/non CAP company. Some parent, somewhere, will whine and cry foul when Johnny trips and pokes his eye out with a stick and try to sue CAP because they were all or mostly CAP members at that activity. That was the logic behind the "rule". Parents think "Oh, Johnny is going out to shoot paintball with a bunch of CAP friends, so it must be OK with CAP. I don't know nothin' 'bout them rules and regulamations they got, but it must be OK since a lot of them are going. Surely, their commander or whatever must know."

Then later:

Outraged parent: "MY SON GOT HIS DURNED EYE POKED OUT WHILE ON THAT CAP PAINTBALL THING Y'ALL WENT ON!! Y'ALL ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MEDICAL BILLS AND PAIN AND SUFFERING! I WANT ELEVENTY MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE YOO-NITED STATES OF AMERICAN AIR FORCE AUXILIARARRAY!!"
CAP CC: "Um, what CAP paintball activity? We didn't go on any paintball activity. I have no idea what you are talking about."
OP: "YOU'RE LYING!! ALL THEM CADETS WENT LAST SATURDAY! THEREFORE YOU HAD TO HAVE KNOWN! THEY ALL MET HERE AND LEFT!"
CC: "Oh, really? CADET COMMANDER!! GET IN HERE!"

Then the proverbial cow offal hits the oscillating wind machine.

This was the "logic" for the "rule". Liability.

[a2capt]

Except .. if you've got a pile of kids in school, several of which, are also cadets.. anytime they get together can't be a activity, and you know they are certainly going to do what kids do.

Heaven forbid they may even mention CAP. Oh noes.

[Storm Chaser]

No CAPF 32, no CAP activity outside weekly meetings. Plain and simple. Parents should be briefed on this new requirement.

[Garibaldi]

Like I said, it may be an urban legend that ended up being taken as true, but you can see where the logic lay.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Like I said, it may be an urban legend that ended up being taken as true, but you can see where the logic lay.

I know at least a few former cadets who are former cadets BECAUSE of that logic.

[THRAWN]

A bunch of kids can get together and do something. No problem.

Cadets need to have SM involvement, and the activity needs to be sanctioned.

IOW, if you all are going to the paint ball range, you're not cadets, and that's not a sanctioned activity.

That means parents are not expecting it to be a CAP event.

I seem to have read somewhere that regardless of whether or not it is a sanctioned CAP activity, when more than 3 cadets get together to do something, it is a CAP activity, regardless. I may be thinking of an outdated "rule", but if you take several cadets who want to go paintballing on their own, it is still considered a CAP activity because they are all members, even in mixed CAP/non CAP company. Some parent, somewhere, will whine and cry foul when Johnny trips and pokes his eye out with a stick and try to sue CAP because they were all or mostly CAP members at that activity. That was the logic behind the "rule". Parents think "Oh, Johnny is going out to shoot paintball with a bunch of CAP friends, so it must be OK with CAP. I don't know nothin' 'bout them rules and regulamations they got, but it must be OK since a lot of them are going. Surely, their commander or whatever must know."

Then later:

Outraged parent: "MY SON GOT HIS DURNED EYE POKED OUT WHILE ON THAT CAP PAINTBALL THING Y'ALL WENT ON!! Y'ALL ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MEDICAL BILLS AND PAIN AND SUFFERING! I WANT ELEVENTY MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE YOO-NITED STATES OF AMERICAN AIR FORCE AUXILIARARRAY!!"
CAP CC: "Um, what CAP paintball activity? We didn't go on any paintball activity. I have no idea what you are talking about."
OP: "YOU'RE LYING!! ALL THEM CADETS WENT LAST SATURDAY! THEREFORE YOU HAD TO HAVE KNOWN! THEY ALL MET HERE AND LEFT!"
CC: "Oh, really? CADET COMMANDER!! GET IN HERE!"

Then the proverbial cow offal hits the oscillating wind machine.

This was the "logic" for the "rule". Liability.

Huh. My first wedding was a CAP activity...

[Al Sayre]

Seriously, my friends and I pulled that stunt a few times when we were cadets.  It's a CAP Bivouac in the woods. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket... Fortunately, nobody got hurt or busted, and now years later I understand the error of my ways and don't recommend it.  Frankly if I was a Squadron Commander and heard that some of my cadets were going to play paintball, I'd probably notify the parents that it was NOT a CAP activity just to be safe (and then leave town for the weekend - plausable deniability and all that you know )...

[Eclipse]

This issue, from CAP's perspective, is whether or not it a negative consequence of the
activity could come back and haunt either the organization or the member.

There's no point in debating whether CAP can control people "off duty" - we already
know that in many circumstances they can, at least up to the point that someone
values their membership.

Members doing "stuff", outside CAP does not automatically make something a "CAP activity",
however the urban legends stem from people doing dumb things like planning prohibited
HAA or similar activities during meetings, on "CAP time", and then issuing the directive
that "since this is not in uniform, we can do whatever we want", or derivatives of that.

Many of these people have found themselves with more free time on the weekends as
CAP is no longer a burden on their schedule, either because they are no longer in positions
of authority, or no longer members.

Any official CAP activity requires supervision as outlined by the regs, which in most cases
is at least one senior member (plus commander approval - many members confuse "awareness"
with "approval").

Variations on this, especially anything which seeks to deliberately circumvent the regs or obfuscate
the situation, risk disciplinary action up to and including the possibility of membership termination.

Something like the OP is discussing may seem innocuous enough, but absent adult supervision,
the protections CAP purports to afford its cadets would be absent, while still potentially
putting the organization at risk from a liability perspective should something negative occur.

Al Sayre's advice should be heeded - Commanders need to advise their members of the boundaries
and requirements for CAP activities, and especially advise parents when something is >not< going to
be officially sanctioned.

[Alaric]

A bunch of kids can get together and do something. No problem.

Cadets need to have SM involvement, and the activity needs to be sanctioned.

IOW, if you all are going to the paint ball range, you're not cadets, and that's not a sanctioned activity.

That means parents are not expecting it to be a CAP event.

I seem to have read somewhere that regardless of whether or not it is a sanctioned CAP activity, when more than 3 cadets get together to do something, it is a CAP activity, regardless. I may be thinking of an outdated "rule", but if you take several cadets who want to go paintballing on their own, it is still considered a CAP activity because they are all members, even in mixed CAP/non CAP company. Some parent, somewhere, will whine and cry foul when Johnny trips and pokes his eye out with a stick and try to sue CAP because they were all or mostly CAP members at that activity. That was the logic behind the "rule". Parents think "Oh, Johnny is going out to shoot paintball with a bunch of CAP friends, so it must be OK with CAP. I don't know nothin' 'bout them rules and regulamations they got, but it must be OK since a lot of them are going. Surely, their commander or whatever must know."

Then later:

Outraged parent: "MY SON GOT HIS DURNED EYE POKED OUT WHILE ON THAT CAP PAINTBALL THING Y'ALL WENT ON!! Y'ALL ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MEDICAL BILLS AND PAIN AND SUFFERING! I WANT ELEVENTY MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE YOO-NITED STATES OF AMERICAN AIR FORCE AUXILIARARRAY!!"
CAP CC: "Um, what CAP paintball activity? We didn't go on any paintball activity. I have no idea what you are talking about."
OP: "YOU'RE LYING!! ALL THEM CADETS WENT LAST SATURDAY! THEREFORE YOU HAD TO HAVE KNOWN! THEY ALL MET HERE AND LEFT!"
CC: "Oh, really? CADET COMMANDER!! GET IN HERE!"

Then the proverbial cow offal hits the oscillating wind machine.

This was the "logic" for the "rule". Liability.

Using the 3 cadets its a cadet activity, what happens if 3 of them go on a school trip; or play in a little league game; or any other things that people of the same age, in a fairly limited geographic area may find themselves doing.  If the 3 cadets rule is really a rule (and I'd like to see the regulation that says that) then we are even more messed up than I thought with the nanny state philosophy

[Eclipse]

There is no "3 cadet rule" and obviously cadets attending the same school, or members of other organizations are not
on a CAP activity when participating with these groups.

[arajca]

A way to avoid this is to use permission slips for EVERY non-regular meeting activity to get parents used to seeing them. If their cadet tells them they're going to a CAP activity, but no permission slip was presented, parents should realize there is some thing not right and call the commander (or other known senior).

[Майор Хаткевич]

I don't think the issue is cadet lies to parents. I think the issue is...can a unit have a non mandatory BBQ in a public park open to family, friends, former members, etc, but not have it as a CAP activity?

[lordmonar]

I don't think the issue is cadet lies to parents. I think the issue is...can a unit have a non mandatory BBQ in a public park open to family, friends, former members, etc, but not have it as a CAP activity?

Yes.   Any group of people are free to do what ever they want.   CAP policy is.......one thing.....if you try to play loose with the rules....and it goes south....then it is your BUTT because CAP INC.  Will point to the regulations and say "Sorry, Mr Squadron Commander was operating outside CAP rules and guidelines, and knew it.....so we aren't going to pay for the injuries."  And Mr. Squadron commander is going to be the one who gets sued.

Hence the good idea (and requirement in some cases) to use permission slips.  I clearly defines THIS IS CAP and THIS IS NOT CAP.

[Майор Хаткевич]

So as long as it says "this is NOT an official CAP event", CAP is OK with it?

[lordmonar]

So as long as it says "this is NOT an official CAP event", CAP is OK with it?

If it is not CAP.....it's not CAP......what could they say?   Assuming that it is not breaking a CPP thing.

[a2capt]

But then if it is a CPP thing .. it's not CAP.

..but you could almost be that CAP will be dragged into it.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Please join us and help to celebrate the richness of the Xyz Squadron. This is not an official Xyz Squadron Event but a gathering of friends with a common interest in Xyz.

For Xyz members, parents, friends, etc. all are invited

[Eclipse]

^ Iffy at best.

[Майор Хаткевич]

No uniforms, and plenty of non members with disclaimer. I can see an ambulance chaser trying...but besides personal liability, is there any issue from the CAP side?

[a2capt]

Duck..  smells.. quacks..  ya know the deal ...
Quit tryin' to squirm the regs..

[Eclipse]

No uniforms, and plenty of non members with disclaimer. I can see an ambulance chaser trying...but besides personal liability, is there any issue from the CAP side?

The person you guys need to ask is the Wing CC or JA.  I just got an invite to the activity in question, and
this type of thing has been a question since I've been in CAP.

[Майор Хаткевич]

No uniforms, and plenty of non members with disclaimer. I can see an ambulance chaser trying...but besides personal liability, is there any issue from the CAP side?

The person you guys need to ask is the Wing CC or JA.  I just got an invite to the activity in question, and
this type of thing has been a question since I've been in CAP.

Hence why I'm here. Getting input to relay to the people planning it, so that they get their ducks in a row, and most importantly cover themselves


If we can get CAP coverage for the event (though...out of uniform?), that's BETTER than the organizers being sued/booted out of CAP, because some ambulance chaser will drag CAP into this because "Squadron XYZs name was on the event, THUS this was a sanctioned CAP event". He may loose in court, but that's a costly proposition for CAP anyway.

[Eclipse]

At a minimum, the Wing CC can give you the proper language to make people understand,
thought the reality is CAP, Inc. is never going to be fully disavowed if people are members.

Don't forget to include your Group CC, too.

[Майор Хаткевич]

At a minimum, the Wing CC can give you the proper language to make people understand,
thought the reality is CAP, Inc. is never going to be fully disavowed if people are members.

Don't forget to include your Group CC, too.

I've forwarded a link to this discussion as well as my thoughts to the organizers. It's quite unfortunate that this is the world we live in, but as a 22 year old "taking on" the HOA president, I learned a very good $1500 lesson as to where "right" and "just" lie sometimes.