So my fellow captalkers, is the agenda out for the upcoming NB meeting or is it to soon?
There's an upcoming NB meeting?
:o
Feb 13th in DC....
Unless there is a special meeting called for, the winter NB meeting is 4-5 March in DC. The agenda for that meeting should be out in about 2-3 weeks.
Is there another NB planned for earlier?
I just noticed...the October NEC minutes draft is out, along with the Finance Committee draft minutes.
Quote from: FW on January 21, 2011, 12:41:24 PM
Unless there is a special meeting called for, the winter NB meeting is 4-5 March in DC. The agenda for that meeting should be out in about 2-3 weeks.
Is there another NB planned for earlier?
NOTF is saying that the NB will be meeting on Feb 13Th in DC....
NOTF has been wrong before, but kinda odd?
Quote from: NCRblues on January 21, 2011, 09:41:34 PM
NOTF is saying that the NB will be meeting on Feb 13Th in DC....
NOTF has been wrong before, but kinda odd?
Perhaps NOTF is not the best place for members seeking information about CAP.
You might wish consider the official NHQ Website (http://www.capmembers.com/events/cap_winter_national_board/index.cfm) for information on things like NB meetings.
So..thread bump.....
We are 3 weeks out from the meeting...any agenda yet? >:D
Oh. I'm somewhat sure they have an agenda ... ;)
I have seen a very early draft, one certainly not for publication, so no posting, especially considering the channel (cue mysterious music)
Nothing earth shattering but it looks like they are going to address a few things we'd all like to see closed / decided, the rest was administrivia.
No official agenda as of yet. Maybe on Monday....
I looked, but haven't been able to find one today either.
-Paramedic
If FW doesn't have one, there "ain't" one.
Ok, here it is....
I find agenda items 2 thru 4 very interesting.
3, 4, and 5 are.... :o
I'm not sure what else to say...
Maybe they too sense change coming, and want to make change before change. ;)
maybe I am dense but what kind of change is brewing?
Wait. What's with the NDAs? Haven't we all taken OPSEC before anyway? So corporate officers should know that they shouldn't discuss sensitive information, right?
Quote from: jimmydeanno on February 18, 2011, 04:28:37 AM
Wait. What's with the NDAs? Haven't we all taken OPSEC before anyway? So corporate officers should know that they shouldn't discuss sensitive information, right?
I was waiting for someone to bring that up...
I have 2 theories on why this is coming about now....
#1. They are trying to choke off the "leaks" out of the NB, NEC, BOG, to one of our...uh..more unfriendly bloggers.....
Or #2. This is going to be OPSEC on speed...and will descend into a "I'm sorry Major, i know you are the DCP of the wing, but i cant tell you anything, its confidential information". Maybe (just saying maybe so don't jump me) someone wants things to be more militaristic and "classify" things....
I am not sure what to think if this one yet...thoughts about it?
Edit: I'm more favoring #1...the more i think about it...
Agenda Item #9...is the NLO actually suggesting that all CAP members mandate a Physical Exam every three years?
:o It would appear that way, yes...
Quote from: SARDOC on February 18, 2011, 08:35:13 AM
Agenda Item #9...is the NLO actually suggesting that all CAP members mandate a Physical Exam every three years?
It could be similar to what the Boy Scouts of America require for their scouts and leaders in order to go to Summer Camp. Physicals are required to attend them and are renewed every three years.
Is Radioman starting to make sense :(
That can't be a National Board Agenda.... There isn't a single item on uniforms (other than Reserve members)
Quote from: jimmydeanno on February 18, 2011, 04:28:37 AM
Wait. What's with the NDAs? Haven't we all taken OPSEC before anyway? So corporate officers should know that they shouldn't discuss sensitive information, right?
Corporate officers already understand the need to be silent on matters of "work product" when in closed session, IG investigations or personnel actions. They also already understand the need to be silent on negotiations of "special projects". NDA's just formalize the understanding. It should not change anything.
That being said, any decisions of the BoG, NEC or, NB is fair game and public record. I have no problems with NDA's and, if the MARB stays independent, no worries about abusing them.
Speaking of the MARB, if Agenda item two is passed as proposed, the Commander's decision is sustained in a tie vote. This would take the vote away from the NLO and, make the commander the defacto chair for the appeal. I think that is not the way to procede.
Quote from: FW on February 18, 2011, 12:44:07 PM
Speaking of the MARB, if Agenda item two is passed as proposed, the Commander's decision is sustained in a tie vote. This would take the vote away from the NLO and, make the commander the defacto chair for the appeal. I think that is not the way to procede.
Not really...The Chair of a board has two potential roles from a parliamentary procedure perspective. The primary role is to conduct and maintain order during proceedings. The NLO would continue in this role. The other is to hold a "casting vote" in the event of a tie. That's all that would be lost.
It's common in parliamentary procedure that a tie sustains the prior state of affairs. Roberts Rules of Order for example provides that in the case of an appeal of the decision of the Chair, a tie vote sustains the decision of the Chair. The "burden of proof" that a decision was inappropriate is already with the person challenging, so requiring that the burden be met to the satisfaction of a majority of MARB members is not a huge stretch.
The MARB is not part of the "chain of command". It is supposed to review the decision of the commander and rule on appropriateness of the adverse action, granting relief if needed. It is supposed to be independent and separate from the commander's influence. The NLO is the chairman. If the National Commander is involved, a designee is appointed chair. The chair is the tie breaker at the current time. Taking that privilege away from the chair is wrong, IMHO.
Quote from: SARDOC on February 18, 2011, 08:35:13 AM
Agenda Item #9...is the NLO actually suggesting that all CAP members mandate a Physical Exam every three years?
Yea they want to get into every aspect of someones life even when it would have NO effect on their volunteer duties in CAP >:(. I think most of us adults can think for ourselves pretty good and if we have a medical condition that will kill or seriously injure us, it's likely someone at the activity will know about it. As far as everything else goes, let me put in bluntly IT'S NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!! IF I certify that I am physically fit to meet the specifics of a training course or activity, etc than that should be it!!!
Just because someone gets hurt at an activity (with a 'possible' underlying medical condition) doesn't necessarily mean we have to go crazy with forms and physical examination requirements. Additionally, I have some very strong privacy concerns about medical data on how CAP is going to control and dispose of these forms once an activity is completed. ???
RM
I find myself agreeing with RADIOMAN...who woulda thunkit? :o
First of all, the NDA seems like using a guillotine to cure a headache, considering that we all have to take part in OPSEC training. CAP members who have been in the Real Military also know the importance of things like "need-to-know" basis.
As to the physicals...I predict some strenuous dissent on this one.
First of all, who's going to pay for it? If it becomes mandatory, CAP and/or the AF should either reimburse the cost of getting it done with a private physician or have a military/USPHS doc do it. I am one with "chronic health conditions (some that I was born with)," and there are simply some activities in CAP that I cannot do. So I do not volunteer for those activities. It should be down to the unit level to keep updated Form 60's on hand, as well as one on your person at all times when participating in CAP. My unit mandates this.
I would also wonder what would be done with such sensitive information. Could it be used as a pretext for kicking someone out of CAP that a commander doesn't like, or what happens after the member leaves?
As I stated earlier, the BSA has had the requirement for physicals for activities over 72 hours for years for both the scouts and the leaders on their dimes as well.
http://scouting.org/sitecore/content/Home/HealthandSafety/ahmr.aspx
I would venture to guess that this would be similar. I can't say I agree with it myself, I just wanted to state that it has been done before in another organization.
NDA is completely different than OPSEC – not even closely related.
They're common in the business world; I'm surprised they haven't been required prior to now.
Quote from: caphornbuckle on February 19, 2011, 07:30:14 AM
As I stated earlier, the BSA has had the requirement for physicals for activities over 72 hours for years for both the scouts and the leaders on their dimes as well.
http://scouting.org/sitecore/content/Home/HealthandSafety/ahmr.aspx
I would venture to guess that this would be similar. I can't say I agree with it myself, I just wanted to state that it has been done before in another organization.
We are not the Boy Scounts!!!Is everyone at National and subordinate units going to have to be HIPA certified? What happens to this "confidential" information once the individual leaves the program?
Who will have access to the medical records? I know the National Medical Officer lives in Texas, Is she going to visit Maxwell and review all these records?
Michael,
Quote from: MSG Mac on February 19, 2011, 04:38:38 PM
We are not the Boy Scounts!!!
Indeed. We have only a fraction of their resources and professional staffing. Their fund-raising abilities alone should make us envious.
But what was your point?
That we don't have both adult and youth members who occaisionally engage in physically challenging activities that may be located in rural areas or even the wilderness?
That we don't have members that have pre-existing physical conditions that could be problematic under those situations?
That sometimes members have health conditions unknown even to themselves that sometimes present during these activities?
That we haven't already had dozens of moderate-to-severe incidents where this has happened?
Quote
Is everyone at National and subordinate units going to have to be HIPA certified?
That's easy. No. CAP is not a health care provider nor an insurance company. HIPPA simply does not apply to us.
QuoteWhat happens to this "confidential" information once the individual leaves the program?
Who will have access to the medical records?
Good questions. Protection of this kind of private information is certainly important, and something that every member has a right to be concerned about.
Maybe that is why Col Chazell is proposing that a committee be established to study the problem, including the experts from the Health and Legal teams.
Restated, Agenda Item #9 is just a proposal to establish a committee to study the issue. It is not quite time to assemble the torches and pitchforks.
I'm confident the committee - if approved - would address your concerns before any actions are even considered. Committees propose regulations and policies, each of which will allow for member input before any actual changes are made.
Non Disclosure Agreements by Corporate Officials --- What the policy is proposing is a pretty broad brush of interpretation of what remains 'secret' in an organization that is primarily supported by taxpayers and not very much via private funding (as is in private businesses -- that surely can require "paid" employees to sign these type of agreements). I'm wonder if it also opens the door to others (not corporate officials) being required to sign these type of muzzle contracts ???. Surely I would agree that any personnel actions require protection. BUT I also have to wonder what does CAP really have to hide that requires it's corporate officers (who are all very dedicated to CAP through years of trustworthy service) to sign these agreements. Again is it the typical CAP "paranoia" which seems the organization suffers from that is driving this requirement ???
RM
Until and unless NHQ is going to pay for the physicals, they will have a hard time making things stick - that doesn't make them a bad
idea, but as others have pointed out elsewhere, at least some of our members have financial issue which preclude their getting regular healthcare
(the current situation in DC notwithstanding).
This is likely a non-issue for cadets, as most schools require substantiation of physicals and shots before you can register, but for adult members
is a different story and will depend how it is implemented. Tell a senior member he can't rappel at encampment without a physical is one thing, tell him he can't be on admin or comm staff without one will, likely impact some members participation and possibly their membership.
This would be the place where we could utilize our Medical Officers. It would be interesting to see how many would be willing to give
free physicals to members - that would actually be a benefit worth putting in the marketing collateral.
As to the NDA's. Considering they are SOP in most corporations for even mid-level managers, they certainly are appropriate for CAP.
Though beyond giving an objective cause for termination which might otherwise be challenged, they won't mean much beyond the 2b,
which for any corporate officer that is leaking information to third parties, should be swift and permanent.
Ned
Point is that the Civil Air Patrol is not the BSA. Their policies are to protect their assets. CAP doesn't seem to have anywhere close to the liability that the scouts have.
Secondly I believe HIPA also covers the custodians of the records, not just the healthcare providers. But you are the lawyer. If, as you say, the information that is requested is not covered by any confidentiality requirement. Why submit it?
Who will review these records upon receipt? Does CAP have a medical staff that can review 30-40,000 medical records, along with contacting the local physicians to verify questionable conditions?
Quote from: MSG Mac on February 19, 2011, 06:26:09 PM
Secondly I believe HIPA also covers the custodians of the records, not just the healthcare providers. But you are the lawyer. If, as you say, the information that is requested is not covered by any confidentiality requirement. Why submit it?
It doesn't - since CAP is neither an employer (for their volunteers), nor a healthcare provider or insurance company, what it does with information
members voluntarily give them is not covered.
You submit it because you want to play in the sandbox, and the sandboxes rules say you do. Plain and simple.
So I won't fly their airplanes or drive their vehicles. No big deal, I'm not doing that now.
Aircrews already have to provide proof of an FAA Physical. So there's no new requirement there.
Other than that I see no reason to provide a physical to CAP. It's none of their business, especially when you're telling us that it becomes tantamount to public information when we release it to CAP.
Quote from: MSG Mac on February 19, 2011, 06:26:09 PM
Ned
Point is that the Civil Air Patrol is not the BSA. Their policies are to protect their assets. CAP doesn't seem to have anywhere close to the liability that the scouts have.
Really? What makes you say that? I would have guessed that since they are a Congressionally-chartered 501c3 just like us, have both adult and youth volunteer members just like us, and occasionally have their members perform physically challenging activities in rural and wilderness areas just like us, that the liability issues might be more similar than dissimilar.
QuoteSecondly I believe HIPA also covers the custodians of the records, not just the healthcare providers. But you are the lawyer. If, as you say, the information that is requested is not covered by any confidentiality requirement. Why submit it?
HIPPA absolutely covers the record custodians of health care providers and insurance companies. But - by its own terms - it simply does not apply to CAP, Inc or our volunteers.
As I said, I agree that confidentiality of the records is a legitimate concern whether we are covered by HIPPA or not. That's why we might establish a committee to study the problem before we make any changes.
Which is all this proposal is - a request to form a committee to study the problem.
No more, no less.
Are you saying you are opposed to the formation of a committee to study the very problems you point out?
Quote from: Eclipse on February 19, 2011, 06:53:48 PM
Quote from: MSG Mac on February 19, 2011, 06:26:09 PM
Secondly I believe HIPA also covers the custodians of the records, not just the healthcare providers. But you are the lawyer. If, as you say, the information that is requested is not covered by any confidentiality requirement. Why submit it?
It doesn't - since CAP is neither an employer (for their volunteers), nor a healthcare provider or insurance company, what it does with information
members voluntarily give them is not covered.
You submit it because you want to play in the sandbox, and the sandboxes rules say you do. Plain and simple.
Adult members can readily place on the medical form "Emergency Medical Information available for access in (my wallet, upper right shirt pocket, etc) IF required". That's all that needs to be put there. Also from a practical standpoint, in most squadrons we pretty much know about the medical issues on our members IF any emergency occurs. OR they again can tell us IF I go down, check my wallet for emergency medical information.
What CAP first needs to decide is what is the physical and mental requirements for each mission position and OR any other special activity. Senior members can certify on the form that they meet the physical/mental requirements -- pretty simple in my book (less government/CAP intrusion into our private lives). HOWEVER, on cadets since we are acting in the place of their parents we would need to know their medical issues. Surely Incident Commanders or Activity Directors may have to make some judgements IF someone presents at the activity/mission with an obvious physical/mental problem.
As far as a medical exam/physical requirements. I recently completed my physical with my long term family physician, and he was satisfied with the results. So I asked him "Does this mean when I leave your office I won't drop dead?", and his answer was "I didn't say that!" - So there's limitations on this requirement also and there's no golden medical standard that offers complete protection to anyone cause that's the way it.
Got to really wonder why we need more requirements put on the unpaid, volunteer members :( ???
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on February 19, 2011, 07:44:31 PMAdult members can readily place on the medical form "Emergency Medical Information available for access in (my wallet, upper right shirt pocket, etc) IF required". That's all that needs to be put there. Also from a practical standpoint, in most squadrons we pretty much know about the medical issues on our members IF any emergency occurs. OR they again can tell us IF I go down, check my wallet for emergency medical information.
You are free to do that, and the activity director is free to refuse your application.
As to "pretty much know" - that is the point.
Those of us who have chronic medical conditions enough to warrant hospitalisation if necessary usually wear a Medic-Alert bracelet or "dogtag."
There are medications I'm allergic to, and something like that should go on a Medic-Alert. My mother was allergic to penicillin and sulfa to the point that giving her either of those could have killed her. She always wore a Medic-Alert. That's one of the first things that paramedics, EMT's and ER doctors/nurses look for. It's kind of like wearing a Form 60 all the time.
Something like that would be a lot better than what NB is proposing.
I think that one thing is certain -- accumulating personal information brings an accompanying responsibility (and liability). The Boy Scouts might be doing it, but each State has its own Constitution and body of law to be taken into consideration.
IANAL, but observation will reveal that all it takes is one disclosure, an angry member (or ex-member) and an attorney to initiate a suit. Win, lose or draw, you lose ($$). I hope that CAP takes into consideration the liability this might entail and the need to protect its corporate officers.
It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the attorneys have to say. Pilots are already covered, so I'm not sure that I understand what the impetus for this is.
john
QuoteUntil and unless NHQ is going to pay for the physicals, they will have a hard time making things stick
Doubtful. Just think of the millions of kids that have to get a physical every year before participating in school sports programs. Everyone should be getting a physical every year anyway, so it shouldn't be any big deal to have the doc sign a form saying you're good to go or not.
Quote from: RiverAux on February 19, 2011, 08:51:57 PM
QuoteUntil and unless NHQ is going to pay for the physicals, they will have a hard time making things stick
Doubtful. Just think of the millions of kids that have to get a physical every year before participating in school sports programs. Everyone should be getting a physical every year anyway, so it shouldn't be any big deal to have the doc sign a form saying you're good to go or not.
From what I read, it's not a matterof the doc saying yes or no, they want to know what conditions you have.
Requiring a Physical is not completely unheard of especially if you expect to be covered by insurance in the case anything happens to you. They will need to establish guidelines and physical standards to every aspect of CAP to determine who can do which jobs. Every ES job will need to be evaluated. I'm just curious if CAP is aware of what it will cost to manage a program like this and if the benefit is really worth the cost not to mention that a few volunteers will leave instead of submitting health information and others because they don't want to pay anywhere from $75 -$1000 for the privilege of providing a service. I know my Health Insurance doesn't cover general physicals so I would have to pay out of pocket and with certain health issues I know my physical would cost about $300 bucks for the associated testing. I think that would effectively make me have to leave CAP even though I'm physically capable of performing most ES missions...just thinking about it.
Funny that they're considering physicals, but haven't moved anywhere on actual fitness tests for ground teams as will be required at some point as the national SAR standards are being developed.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 19, 2011, 07:50:39 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on February 19, 2011, 07:44:31 PMAdult members can readily place on the medical form "Emergency Medical Information available for access in (my wallet, upper right shirt pocket, etc) IF required". That's all that needs to be put there. Also from a practical standpoint, in most squadrons we pretty much know about the medical issues on our members IF any emergency occurs. OR they again can tell us IF I go down, check my wallet for emergency medical information.
You are free to do that, and the activity director is free to refuse your application.
As to "pretty much know" - that is the point.
Yep, done it already for activities with NO issues whatsoever. This isn't the military and frankly for any classroom type activities that CAP form 17 is much too intrusive
"......Block 21 (CAPF 17 instructions): List physical handicaps or ailments for which the applicant will be taking medication during the activity or which might affect the applicant's level of participation in activities. Provide a list of medication taken regularly. Use Additional Remarks section or add additional sheet if necessary......."
I didn't know that all these activity directors have MD degrees and can evaluate anything medically -- CAP lacks enough medical specialists to adequately review the information provided anyways. Most CAP training is of short duration and again a good description of the physical aspects/requirements, IF ANY should be include in the course description PHYSICAL & MENTAL REQUIREMENTS (this would be a VERY prudent action, to ensure compliance with various federal laws, that CAP must comply with) and the adult member self certifies he/she meets these requirements. Anyone who's got chronic medical issues knows their limitations and I highly doubt most are going to get themselves injured or killed at some CAP activity.
RM
Quote from: FW on February 18, 2011, 01:36:30 AM
Ok, here it is....
I find agenda items 2 thru 4 very interesting.
Thank you -- Wouldn't it be great IF there's was an agenda item basically stating for the next year, no implementation action will be taken on anything proposed that will cost the general membership either more time or more money :angel: So if you add any requirements you have to reduce others so that it equals out.
RM
What do you guys think of Items 10 & 11 that would create either a "temporarily inactive" or "Reserve" membership category that would exempt the person in that category from all the mandatory stuff and impose some restrictions on participation? In this form, I'm not seeing any real benefits that wouldn't be derived from just moving them over to Patron.
I have promoted a "Reserve" concept in the past, but this wasn't what I was going for.
^A "temporarily inactive" or Reserve membership category doesn't make much sense to me as, it does seem like "Patron" membership status pretty much covers the bases. However, if you change the definition of Patron status a bit, I think what the authors of the agenda items are looking for would be satisfied.
Quote from: FW on February 20, 2011, 06:52:01 PM
^A "temporarily inactive" or Reserve membership category doesn't make much sense to me as, it does seem like "Patron" membership status pretty much covers the bases. However, if you change the definition of Patron status a bit, I think what the authors of the agenda items are looking for would be satisfied.
The main difference being the wear of uniforms, which seems to be "important" for people who otherwise can't be bothered to show up to a meeting or do a few online tests.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on February 20, 2011, 05:03:16 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 19, 2011, 07:50:39 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on February 19, 2011, 07:44:31 PMAdult members can readily place on the medical form "Emergency Medical Information available for access in (my wallet, upper right shirt pocket, etc) IF required". That's all that needs to be put there. Also from a practical standpoint, in most squadrons we pretty much know about the medical issues on our members IF any emergency occurs. OR they again can tell us IF I go down, check my wallet for emergency medical information.
You are free to do that, and the activity director is free to refuse your application.
As to "pretty much know" - that is the point.
Yep, done it already for activities with NO issues whatsoever. This isn't the military and frankly for any classroom type activities that CAP form 17 is much too intrusive
"......Block 21 (CAPF 17 instructions): List physical handicaps or ailments for which the applicant will be taking medication during the activity or which might affect the applicant's level of participation in activities. Provide a list of medication taken regularly. Use Additional Remarks section or add additional sheet if necessary......."
I didn't know that all these activity directors have MD degrees and can evaluate anything medically -- CAP lacks enough medical specialists to adequately review the information provided anyways. Most CAP training is of short duration and again a good description of the physical aspects/requirements, IF ANY should be include in the course description PHYSICAL & MENTAL REQUIREMENTS (this would be a VERY prudent action, to ensure compliance with various federal laws, that CAP must comply with) and the adult member self certifies he/she meets these requirements. Anyone who's got chronic medical issues knows their limitations and I highly doubt most are going to get themselves injured or killed at some CAP activity.
This isn't the military? Hmmm...normally you are much less definite on that subject.
Just as an FYI - not all adult members in CAP limit their participation to class-room only situations, and not all CAP activities use the Form 17 for participation, many use the 31 or something else, yes, for everyone.
Quote from: FW on February 20, 2011, 06:52:01 PM
^A "temporarily inactive" or Reserve membership category doesn't make much sense to me as, it does seem like "Patron" membership status pretty much covers the bases. However, if you change the definition of Patron status a bit, I think what the authors of the agenda items are looking for would be satisfied.
Patron doesn't work for cadets does it?
This serves no purpose but ego gratification.
Two classes are all we need:
"Active" - do something "useful" for CAP on a regular basis ("useful" being a subjective term to the respective commander) comply with program mandates for training and other regulations.
"Patron" - anything not the above.
The only thing you lose as a patron is TIG, getting in and out is just paperwork.
This isn't complicated...
Quote from: RiverAux on February 20, 2011, 06:46:02 PM
What do you guys think of Items 10 & 11 that would create either a "temporarily inactive" or "Reserve" membership category that would exempt the person in that category from all the mandatory stuff and impose some restrictions on participation? In this form, I'm not seeing any real benefits that wouldn't be derived from just moving them over to Patron.
I have promoted a "Reserve" concept in the past, but this wasn't what I was going for.
I wouldn't call it reserve, I would call it "inactive" membership and there would have to be a reason for it, either voluntary (which reasons coded in the system) but could be involuntary IF the Commander couldn't get them to do any training and they just weren't communicating with the unit. Also they couldn't renew IF in that commander imposed involuntary status.
Much of this on line training requirements really aren't that difficult to do, and really doesn't take that long to accomplish. Now how effective it is will really vary with each individual :-\
RM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 20, 2011, 06:58:45 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on February 20, 2011, 05:03:16 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 19, 2011, 07:50:39 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on February 19, 2011, 07:44:31 PMAdult members can readily place on the medical form "Emergency Medical Information available for access in (my wallet, upper right shirt pocket, etc) IF required". That's all that needs to be put there. Also from a practical standpoint, in most squadrons we pretty much know about the medical issues on our members IF any emergency occurs. OR they again can tell us IF I go down, check my wallet for emergency medical information.
You are free to do that, and the activity director is free to refuse your application.
As to "pretty much know" - that is the point.
Yep, done it already for activities with NO issues whatsoever. This isn't the military and frankly for any classroom type activities that CAP form 17 is much too intrusive
"......Block 21 (CAPF 17 instructions): List physical handicaps or ailments for which the applicant will be taking medication during the activity or which might affect the applicant's level of participation in activities. Provide a list of medication taken regularly. Use Additional Remarks section or add additional sheet if necessary......."
I didn't know that all these activity directors have MD degrees and can evaluate anything medically -- CAP lacks enough medical specialists to adequately review the information provided anyways. Most CAP training is of short duration and again a good description of the physical aspects/requirements, IF ANY should be include in the course description PHYSICAL & MENTAL REQUIREMENTS (this would be a VERY prudent action, to ensure compliance with various federal laws, that CAP must comply with) and the adult member self certifies he/she meets these requirements. Anyone who's got chronic medical issues knows their limitations and I highly doubt most are going to get themselves injured or killed at some CAP activity.
This isn't the military? Hmmm...normally you are much less definite on that subject.
Just as an FYI - not all adult members in CAP limit their participation to class-room only situations, and not all CAP activities use the Form 17 for participation, many use the 31 or something else, yes, for everyone.
I'm involved in ES also, BUT hey the first step is to determine what the physical/mental requirements (including the capability to lift objects/personnel at certain weight levels) are for each ES position. Not sure what the value is in getting a form filled out by a senior member on a Ground Team, who is overweight with hypertension, controlled by medication. There's nothing in the CAP regulations that would prevent his deployment into the field ???. Same thing with getting a ground type typical physical, what medical standard is going to be applied to the results as far as CAP ES positions OR other training activities ???.
Army Regulation 40-501 Standards of Medical Fitness, is the regulation applied to all potential military recruits reporting for examination at the various Military Entrance Processing Stations in the US. You've got to remember that there's a fair amount of dedicated senior members in the organization that failed to meet this medical fitness standard and will NEVER be able to enter the military :( BUT do want to serve their country :clap:and CAP is their way.
RM