CAP Talk

CAPR 52-10 (14 Mar 08) States:

d. Ensure that at least two "approved" senior members are present at all overnight cadet activities. Encourage at least two senior members to be present at all cadet activities (with the exception of chaplain counseling or cadet orientation flights). This policy is for the protection of the senior members as well as the cadets.

It does NOT say a female senior member.  Is there something else I'm missing here?

I was CC'd on an email from C/CC to CC in regards to an FTX being planned that said "I understand that a female senior member mustbe present if female cadets are staying overnight..."

I remember pulling 52-10 out at more than one overnight FTX where some over zealous reg hound tried to pull that one on me throughout the years.  That's why I kept the CPPT regulation in my ES kit.

Not required by National, but I have heard of both official and unofficial policies to that effect in some wings and squadrons. 

Just another CAP myth that just won't die. Although it doesn't exactly hurt to have a female senior member present.

Quote from: jeders on December 24, 2008, 03:33:56 AM
Just another CAP myth that just won't die. Although it doesn't exactly hurt to have a female senior member present.

I agree 100%.  That's why it was cool to have my wife in CAP for a few years.  She's considering joining again, but we've got two ankle biters so I'd rather she not join right now (don't tell her that).

I looked on the wing website for supplements to no avail.  So as far as I can tell, the myth lives within my squadron.

Quote from: jeders on December 24, 2008, 03:33:56 AM
Just another CAP myth that just won't die. Although it doesn't exactly hurt to have a female senior member present.

I'd go so far as to say that it's a very good idea -- although, as pointed out, there is no requirement.

Again, this depends on where you are.   RMR has an official policy letter stating that there must be at least one senior of each gender present if there are mixed gender cadets at an overnight activity.

Quote from: Pingree1492 on December 24, 2008, 03:45:57 AM
Again, this depends on where you are.   

Well, I checked my wing and region's supplements for CPPT so unless they just aren't available online but exist in in hard copy, we should go with the NHQ CAPR 52-10.

I personally disagree with this policy as it severely limits female cadets from participating.  I wonder if in RMR there was a female cadet and two male seniors, but one was her parent, if that would be an acception to the rule.  If it doesn't state that it is accepted, then a father would be in violation of being at an activity with his daughter.

Quote from: JoeTomasone on December 24, 2008, 03:39:32 AM

Quote from: jeders on December 24, 2008, 03:33:56 AM
Just another CAP myth that just won't die. Although it doesn't exactly hurt to have a female senior member present.

I'd go so far as to say that it's a very good idea -- although, as pointed out, there is no requirement.

Not saying it's not a very good idea. Anything you can do to help protect yourself as well as the cadets is always good when it comes to this type of thing. It's even better when you have an activity longer than just a few days and you have a female their to help female cadets handle any potentially embarrassing personal issues.

The only part I don't like about it is that it shows that people aren't actually reading the regs. They just keep perpetuating myths that, with the exception of RMR, have little or no grounding in actual written regs.

Quote from: Stonewall on December 24, 2008, 03:36:10 AM

Quote from: jeders on December 24, 2008, 03:33:56 AM
Just another CAP myth that just won't die. Although it doesn't exactly hurt to have a female senior member present.

I agree 100%.  That's why it was cool to have my wife in CAP for a few years.  She's considering joining again, but we've got two ankle biters so I'd rather she not join right now (don't tell her that).

I wish I could get my fiancee to rejoin for this reason too, but she's not particularly interested right now.

Our squadron policy requires a female member at overnight activities. Fortunately, we have enough female senior members (plus a female Cadet Sponsor Member), so this isn't really a problem.

Additionally, we prohibit one-on-one contact between male and female cadets at squadron activities. If someone walks out of a room, it's just second nature to notice if there's only two people left. Maybe it's overkill, but the parents of our female cadets are totally comfortable leaving their daughters in our care.

Over protection can scare away the female cadets also.  I was in a SQD that prohibited female involvement on FTX and overnight activities, because unfortunately we did not have a Female Senior Member, and we were forced to follow a leader who was way overprotective of himself.

I say Stonewall......call the Wing and find out the "for-sure".   

I have been in CAP almost 22 years, 17 as a senior member.  I have always had female cadets in my squadrons and have never had to make a conscious effort to "keep my eye" on anyone, follow cadets out the door, think about who is where.  

I can't say that about an encampment or two, but those weren't my projects.  If they were, I would have set clear and concise rules that wouldn't leave room for speculation or error.  Once the standard is set, everyone can be held accountable.  

With good leadership and a clear understanding of the policy we don't have to live in fear of lawsuits.  99% of it is common sense.  In fact, when "camping" in the field, we've never really set any sort of standard distance between tents.  Usually nature takes its course and the female cadets set up in their own area.

Quote from: Timbo on December 24, 2008, 04:03:03 AM
Over protection can scare away the female cadets also.  I was in a SQD that prohibited female involvement on FTX and overnight activities, because unfortunately we did not have a Female Senior Member, and we were forced to follow a leader who was way overprotective of himself.

I say Stonewall......call the Wing and find out the "for-sure".   

AFAIK, there is no such requirement in SER/FLWG.   I have been on several overnight activities with cadets and it has never even come up.  

I agree with Stonewall - be conscious and aware but not paranoid.    You don't want to make cadets of the opposite sex uneasy around you (or worse), but you also don't want them thinking that you are ignoring or don't care about them.

I treat cadets of both sexes equally and have never had a serious issue.

Quote from: JoeTomasone on December 24, 2008, 04:08:40 AMI treat cadets of both sexes equally and have never had a serious issue.

That is the key to success.  I just wish this is how it was in the military....(another discussion for another forum)

Wow... girls who cannot do what their "brothers" can do because of no female adult?  One of each gender adult accompanying cadets?  What a sad state of affairs.  I grant that we have to protect everyone involved but if we're not careful we might just "regulate" ourselves out of existence.

Timbo's info - "I was in a SQD that prohibited female involvement on FTX and overnight activities, because unfortunately we did not have a Female Senior Member" -- scares the hell out of me.  If we start insisting on one male and one female senior for overnights it's the female cadets who will lose out in squadrons made up mostly of male seniors.  Really... is that protection... or discrimination?   :(

Quote from: tjaxe on December 24, 2008, 04:22:40 AM
Wow... girls who cannot do what their "brothers" can do because of no female adult?  One of each gender adult accompanying cadets?  What a sad state of affairs.  I grant that we have to protect everyone involved but if we're not careful we might just "regulate" ourselves out of existence.

Timbo's info - "I was in a SQD that prohibited female involvement on FTX and overnight activities, because unfortunately we did not have a Female Senior Member" -- scares the hell out of me.  If we start insisting on one male and one female senior for overnights it's the female cadets who will lose out in squadrons made up mostly of male seniors.  Really... is that protection... or discrimination?   :(

It is absolute Discrimination.  Unfortunately, I was a Cadet at the time, and had no input on the issue.  I will say that when this issue does come up in units or Wings I have been in since becoming a Senior, I have contested it.  My contention is that child predators come in all shapes, all sizes and all genders, not just men.   

Some things are R-E-G, and some things are C-Y-A.  At all times you'd like the two to be at least equal, but when C-Y-A gets in the way of operations, sometimes you have to drop to R-E-G and just be more vigilant.

Barring females from participation based on the gender of the seniors is not kosher, or good for the corps.

Its bad enough as it is that most encampments have to seperate quarters based on gender, which always makes it difficult for the female cadets to really integrate into a flight.

This is probably one of the biggest reasons that the senior / cadet barrier has to be maintained at all times.  Barring a few legit predators, the above is where I see the most problems - seniors who are too chummy with the cadets and many times blur the lines during these activities, especially with recent converts and older cadets.

Quote from: Stonewall on December 24, 2008, 04:06:04 AM
Once the standard is set, everyone can be held accountable. With good leadership and a clear understanding of the policy we don't have to live in fear of lawsuits.

Actually, that's the idea. We don't follow the cadets around, or "keep an eye" on them at every moment. It's just understood by everyone what that standard is, and it's not a big deal. Everyone knows that seniors can't be alone with cadets, male or female, except as permitted by regulation. You just follow the standard without giving it any more attention than it deserves.

Quote from: Timbo on December 24, 2008, 04:29:33 AMMy contention is that child predators come in all shapes, all sizes and all genders, not just men.

Two news stories today - another teacher arrested for sexual assault, and another cop arrested for child porn. It's a crazy world out there, and I want to be able to tell the mother of a 12 year old girl (or boy) that we've given some serious thought to keeping her child safe.

Quote from: Timbo on December 24, 2008, 04:29:33 AM
My contention is that child predators come in all shapes, all sizes and all genders, not just men.   

Amen.  We need to remember:

1.  The recent rise in FEMALE teachers arrested for molesting students of BOTH sexes

2.  Not everyone is heterosexual

If you require a female SM to stay with the female cadets because of some policy and then you learn that the SM is a lesbian, what now?   Homosexuality is not a valid reason to deny/terminate membership.   So now do we have to keep track of who is what orientation to ensure that we don't put the wrong SMs with the wrong cadets?   What about bisexual members?  

This is why I like the way 52-10 is written.   Two SMs at overnight activities -- no mention of gender, orientation, nothing -- just a requirement to keep SM/Cadet relationships PROFESSIONAL.

The reality is that we need to do what we can to ensure the safety of all members - but nothing is 100% effective -- as the post above illustrates.   

Small side note.

I was at an awards banquet recently and after the smoke had cleared I was talking with one of the female cadets trying to badger her into applying for encampment.  And I could tell something was bothering her so I asked.

Her response was highly unexpected and while I had noticed I never would have taken a second look.

She said when the Senator and the seniors were taking the pictures with me after I got my award they stood at ease while with the guys they put their hand on their shoulders.  It made me feel uncomfortable.

I've heard similar statements from female cadets about specifically not wanting special precautions or exemptions.  I had one female cadet go so far to say she didn't think it was fair that she didn't have to run as fast or do as many push ups as males of similar standing.

There is always the matter of CYA but after we have attempted to do that and failed I see more fault in denying females the right to attend than I do letting them attend and simply not having female adult guidance.

Quote from: EMT-83 on December 24, 2008, 04:52:43 AM
Everyone knows that seniors can't be alone with cadets, male or female, except as permitted by regulation. You just follow the standard without giving it any more attention than it deserves.

Cite, please.

Hint: Another wives tale - the above is not addressed on any level in the regs.

Make that shouldn't be alone with cadets...

Everyone is worried about lawsuits because of the male-female thing. But it's just a matter of time before a lawsuit is filed because of the blatant discrimination against the female cadets. To me, if you don't allow female cadets to participate in overnight activities because of no female senior presence, you're begging for a lawsuit.  As far as the regions/wings requiring female senior presence, if the local squadron doesn't have a female senior, is the region/wing going to furnish one so the activity can take place?  That's like the feds requiring states to do such and such, but then not providing the money to comply.  

Education is a key to this.  Teach the cadets, female and male, of what the CPPT is and says.  I know, it's probably more reactive than proactive, but be realistic. You can't protect 100% of the people 100% of the time.

Here's the kicker....if your wing has a policy that says you "must have" one senior member of each gender to match your cadets.....and you don't have a female senior member.....it does not mean Females can't particpate.....it means the activity cannot happen!

We cannot discriminate based on gender.  It is as simple as that.


So...if you live in a region where you have this rule....you should communicate it up the chain to get that policy revoked.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 24, 2008, 07:37:40 AM
...it means the activity cannot happen!

I was wondering if someone's unit was smart enough to do this. I've seen cancelled activities for this very reason. There was grumbling, but the reason was explained. A few weeks later there were suddenly a lot of mothers that wanted to join up. I guess cancellations can identify certain needs.

Even if there is no stipulation in pubs that a female senior be present with a female cadet, I find it disturbing that some think it's actually a bad idea. Then again, most of the units I've been in, we had at least three or four female seniors, so it wasn't usually a problem.

Kurt LaFond (CAP's Chief of Cadet Programs) said it best when I had the opportunity to attend a TLC course that he was an instructor at. For any questions about CPPT that you may have you should go through your legal officer. By the way TLC is very good training for any senior member that works with cadets or may work with cadets.

Quote from: tarheel gumby on December 24, 2008, 01:54:11 PM
Kurt LaFond

Curt :)

TY Sorry I am running on about 5 hours of sleep.

Another way around the problem is to recruit the Mothers of the Female Cadets, as Cadet Sponsor members

Quote from: tarheel gumby on December 24, 2008, 02:18:15 PM
Another way around the problem is to recruit the Mothers of the Female Cadets, as Cadet Sponsor members

I wouldn't call that a "way around the problem" as it is a viable solution. A female senior is a female senior, regardless of their specific status. The CSM was actually intended to serve as chaperones, drivers, etc. It's a membership without having to worry about thinks like PD and rank.

Quote from: tarheel gumby on December 24, 2008, 02:18:15 PM
Another way around the problem is to recruit the Mothers of the Female Cadets, as Cadet Sponsor members

I know, this is for another topic and has actually been hashed out on CAP Talk before, but I for one try not to recruit parents.  In my experience, I've had more problems than not.

I hate the term "Squadron Mom".

I'm glad that I've never been in a wing that required that both sex seniors be at activities.  It's quite obvious that the lawyers at NHQ have probably reviewed the 52-10 and feel that just having two CPPT certified seniors at any overnight activity is kosher.

Heck, I do plenty of activities in which I am the only senior (not overnight) and we have both male and female cadets.  Sometimes there just aren't people available and I'm not going to have our cadet program suck because we can't get another senior there that day.  It also lets us switch off activities so none of us get burnt out.

Just recently we had a SAREX where we had only male seniors and there was one female cadet there and about 25 male cadets.  It was an overnight activity, everything was fine.  

Now, when it comes to extended activities, like encampment, I think it would be in everyone's best interest to have a female senior member available - not because the assumption is that something bad is going to happen, but just because there are certain things that males are just not that good with dealing with and it is best to have another adult female there to help.

I do think that in many instances the local leadership fails to develop the required relationships with the cadets parents to build that trust level.  They don't keep the parents informed about activity details, etc.

I remember going to COS - we were not permitted to be in the (sleeping) room of a member of the opposite sex.  So during the evenings when we'd get together for our study groups, etc we would have to exclude the only female cadets in our seminar (there weren't common areas that I remember).  In fact, I specifically remember this particular cadet asking me for some computer help and I went into her room with the door wide open, standing next to her desk (which was 3 feet into the room just inside the door) and some grouchy senior started chewing me out for giving her some help.  The entire week this poor girl was practically ostracized because of some insane rule – betcha that was fun...

Personally though, I think that there is probably some pretty good explanation behind why the rule is the way it is and we should probably just stick with that.  Otherwise, I think that if you aren't comfortable working with cadets and treating them all equally or fear something that probably won't happen – perhaps the cadet program isn't the best place for you. (not "you" specific, "you" generic)

Very interesting point on that female required policy & potential discrimination.  Would be interesting to learn how many wings/groups/squadrons have this policy.  We don't BUT again we have enough female senior members.   I think also there's a big difference between overnight camping and just a squadron activity that is held all day long.  HOWEVER, that being said, remember that CAP Regulations are the "mimimum" standard you have to meet.  As a senior member, you still bear some risk with any cadet activities you are supervising.  It all gets down to what YOUR comfort level is!!  It's unfortunate the way the world turns today as far as potential litigation!!!
RM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 24, 2008, 07:37:40 AM
Here's the kicker....if your wing has a policy that says you "must have" one senior member of each gender to match your cadets.....and you don't have a female senior member.....it does not mean Females can't particpate.....it means the activity cannot happen!
We cannot discriminate based on gender.  It is as simple as that.

I just learned that this is a squadron policy, not group or higher.  I'm not happy with it and will address it with the commander.

Quote from: Stonewall on December 24, 2008, 03:24:11 PM
I just learned that this is a squadron policy, not group or higher.  I'm not happy with it and will address it with the commander.

Good luck.

Quote from: jeders on December 24, 2008, 03:55:28 PM

Quote from: Stonewall on December 24, 2008, 03:24:11 PM
I just learned that this is a squadron policy, not group or higher.  I'm not happy with it and will address it with the commander.

Good luck.

+1.  It is either a policy left over from a previous Commander, or one this guy put in place to cover his butt.

If it is a policy the new Commander created, there is very little chance of you getting that policy changed.   

As a Sq Commander it is my policy that no female cadet can be in a room with a door shut or take a ride home from a male member unless a female member is also present.   In addition, if after a Sq meeting a female cadet is still there waiting for a ride from home, I insist that one of our female senior members remain until that ride comes.  Overly cautious, I do not think so.  Just common sense in todays world.

Quote from: SoCalCAPOfficer on December 24, 2008, 06:37:17 PMI insist that one of our female senior members remain until that ride comes. 

...and if they don't?

Which one gets disciplined?  The senior who has to get home, the female cadet for being "female", or the non-member parents for being late?

And its OK to be alone with a male cadet or for a female staffer to be alone with a male cadet?

I fully understand the sentiment and idea, but in practice its difficult to enforce. 

Quote from: SoCalCAPOfficer on December 24, 2008, 06:37:17 PM
As a Sq Commander it is my policy that no female cadet can be in a room with a door shut or take a ride home from a male member unless a female member is also present.   In addition, if after a Sq meeting a female cadet is still there waiting for a ride from home, I insist that one of our female senior members remain until that ride comes.  Overly cautious, I do not think so.  Just common sense in todays world.

Please allow me to play devil's advocate here...

In your first example, am I to imply that male senior/male cadet or female senior/female cadet are okay in a closed room?  Also, how, exactly, does the sex of the second member affect the situation?

Quote from: SoCalCAPOfficer on December 24, 2008, 06:37:17 PM
As a Sq Commander it is my policy that no female cadet can be in a room with a door shut or take a ride home from a male member unless a female member is also present.   

And what about a female cadet talking to a male chaplain in a room with the door shut?

While I will give you an A for effort, actually an A- but whose keeping track, rules like these which apply so narrowly do no one any good. And making them apply uniformly (i.e. a male cadet cannot be alone in a room with a female senior unles there's another male present) just make it impossible to run a program. As a 2 time DCC and soon to be Sqdn CC, lighten up Francis.

I was once at a regular meeting, during my first command, and I was alone.   That was when the unit's senior membership was dying due to some stronger wording in CAPR 60-1 (an effect I have worked to insure never happens in our unit again). I should point out that then,like now, I was driving 80 miles to my meetings.

Parents just dropped off their children and drove off before I could tell them the meeting was effectively cancelled.  Cell phones were not as universal then.  I had the cadet practice their drill as we, an older Cadet Chief, contacted parents to come and pick up their children.  This was outdoors in good weather at a Reserve Center.  Still, in the eyes of CAP, I was effectively alone.

Then, a horrible thing happened, a cadet fell to the ground.  He appearently had a heart condition.  The other cadets made a huddle around and I sat next to the child as comfortingly as I could until his mother arrived.  They had failed to indicate this on the child's form.

It truely was a horrible thing to handle that totally alone.  So much so, that I resigned my command and was away from the Unit for two years.  I regret that...the unit suffered and nearly died.  They needed me, and I had run away.  It had reached the point that the uniform was like an unwanted burden.  When that point is reached, I reconed, it was time to go away for a while.  I'm truly sorry my brother and sister airmen, I should have stayed.

When I returned to active CAP duty in 2005, I came with the idea in mind that that would never happen to anyone in the unit ever again.  no man would be a SQUADRON (there would be a Staff,not just fair weather fliers) and there would never be a situation when one person was alone.

A lesson to all of you should be learned here from this.

As to the "gender" question, incidents can happen when there is one CAP Officer present or 100.  We must, to avoid that, live up to our creed...SEMPER VIGILANS!!!

Yeah, as a 3 time DCC and 1 time CC, with 17 years as a senior member, I have simply played by the rules set for by 52-10, no more, no less, and have had nothing but thriving programs for cadets of both genders.  No one ever felt excluded and not a single incident, complaint, charge or issue under my watch.

It's easy folks.  No need to make extra rules.

Another part of this is the "unexpected consequences" of such a policy - every time an individual senior happens to walk through a room where an individual cadet happens to be sitting its a "major CPPT violation".

Every private conversation between a senior and a cadet is a "major CPPT violation", etc., etc, ad infinitum.

I've had a situation where a disgruntled member, grasping to take down anyone else that he could with him, started doing exactly the above.  Thankfully, it was a woeful misunderstanding of the regs (which was related to his other issues), but had something been in place as an SOP, I would most likely have had to address those allegations as well.

Operating with a CYA mentality towards exposure to false allegations and / or protecting the cadets is fine, a best practice in fact, but putting formal or informal unit SOP's in place regarding same is a bad idea.  It handcuffs operations and opportunities, and sets the wrong idea and example regarding interaction with adults.  In fact it can backfire into a situation where you place life-long mistrust of superiors, especially superiors of the other gender, into a cadets mind.

Here's another one; O-Flights - you get them out to the airport, with the last flight being one cadet of each gender and a male pilot.  The day runs long and the male cadet has to leave.  You're going to send the female cadet home without a ride because of the Unit SOP?

And relaxing a standing rule can be even worse than not having one if some "bad" does happen.

Interesting that I disagree with almost every word written above. I think sticking your head in the sand is far more dangerous. I have no problem explaining why I walked through a room occupied by a single cadet.

Having a few simple rules in place and letting everyone know what's expected should be enough.

Cadet protection needs to be part of our corporate mentality. I've seen some great posts here, with many points of view expressed and no one flamed. Just the type of discussion this type of forum is designed for.

Quote from: EMT-83 on December 24, 2008, 08:35:20 PM
Having a few simple rules in place and letting everyone know what's expected should be enough.

Isn't it enough?  Don't we already have this?  Mandatory CPPT training for all seniors as outlined in 52-10.  As jimmydeano said above, the legal guys at NHQ and the AF think what we have at a national level is good enough, why change what has already been laid in stone?

I think our current NHQ CPPT regulations are perfect the way they are now.  I don't think we need to get excited over it or let it run our lives, and we certainly don't need to live in fear.

We have situations in our particular area that we need to be sensitive to - the local high school where a dozen girls joined a "pregnancy pact", a state trooper recently arrested for sexually assaulting two young girls, and the ongoing clergy scandal. The list goes on and on. Parents and cadets need to think of CAP as a safe environment.

Like I said before, it's a crazy world we live in. I can't imagine any of my senior members having the ability to harm a cadet. Most of our male seniors have military/police/fire backgrounds, and would likely do serious damage to anyone caught messing with a cadet. Our female seniors are all mothers with children who are current or past cadets, I doubt that any are closet lesbians or cougars on the prowl. Having said that, I want procedures in place to help prevent the unthinkable from happening.

I think that there holes in 52-10 that need to be filled in, specifically one-on-one contact between cadets and seniors of any sex and cadets of the opposite sex.

It is true that we need to be sensitive to our community environment.  Also we do need to practice CYA and err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting our cadets, our selves and our organisation.

But....we also have a mission.   If we paint ourselves into a corner with too many rules then we begin to fail in our mission.

One on one rules are just those kinds of rules that will makes us fail in our mission.  Use common sense, try to keep the TWO PERSON INTEGRITY rule as much as possible just to CYA...but don't let the mission fail because of it.

Quote from: EMT-83 on December 24, 2008, 08:53:02 PM
We have situations in our particular area that we need to be sensitive to - the local high school where a dozen girls joined a "pregnancy pact", a state trooper recently arrested for sexually assaulting two young girls, and the ongoing clergy scandal. The list goes on and on. Parents and cadets need to think of CAP as a safe environment.

By your "area" do you mean your specific geographic location?  Because everything you've mentioned is an issue on one level or another everywhere, with the exception of the pregnancy pact which was basically an urban legend combined with inflammatory media:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-22-pregnancy-pact_N.htm

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view/2008_06_25_Preg_pact_story_unravels/srvc=home&position=0

...and really doesn't have anything to do with CPT in CAP...

Quote from: EMT-83 on December 24, 2008, 08:53:02 PM
I think that there holes in 52-10 that need to be filled in, specifically one-on-one contact between cadets and seniors of any sex and cadets of the opposite sex.

The problem is that there are all sorts of situations that pretty much require one-on-one contact between cadets and seniors:

• Performance counseling sessions (praise in public, correct in private)
  
  
• Test corrections and feedback
  
  
• Mentoring
  
  
• Chaplain's Interviews or Counseling
  
  
• Health Information reviews with a CAP HSO
  
  
• Orientation Flights
  
  
• And a bunch of others I can't think of right now

Seriously, as others have pointed out, these kinds of hypertechnical "there must be multiple CPPT-cleared seniors within line of sight at all times" rules tend to operate to the detriment of the women generally by singling them out.  Even if the rule as written is facially gender-neutral, as a practical matter it operates to restrict the opportunities of young women far more often than young men simply because of our skewed gender ratio for cadets.

"Separate but equal" is a pretty thouroughly discredited philosophy, even when well intended.


Because we cannot reasonably forsee all possible issues at local units, we set some simple ground rules ("Always at least one senior and at least two seniors at overnights") but leave the implementation up to folks with common sense and wisdom -- our CP leaders at the local level.


Be fair to all of your cadets, at all times.


Ned Lee

Quote from: Eclipse on December 24, 2008, 09:04:21 PMBy your "area" do you mean your specific geographic location?

All occurred in our city, or very close by. Not an urban legend.

The relevance to CAP is acts committed by adults trusted to work with youths. Um , not the "pregnancy pact", that was teens being teens.

Quote from: EMT-83 on December 24, 2008, 09:21:24 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on December 24, 2008, 09:04:21 PMBy your "area" do you mean your specific geographic location?

All occurred in our city, or very close by. Not an urban legend.

The relevance to CAP is acts committed by adults trusted to work with youths. Um , not the "pregnancy pact", that was teens being teens.

Understood, but don't feel special, we've got that nonsense here, too...

Quote from: EMT-83 on December 24, 2008, 08:53:02 PM
I think that there holes in 52-10 that need to be filled in, specifically one-on-one contact between cadets and seniors of any sex and cadets of the opposite sex.

The rules already address this; here's the relevant quote from CAPR 52-10:

QuoteEnsure that at least two "approved" senior members are present at all overnight cadet activities. Encourage at least two senior members to be present at all cadet activities (with the exception of chaplain counseling or cadet orientation flights).  This policy is for the protection of the senior members as well as the cadets.

The clear intent is that there should be no one-to-one contact between cadets and seniors, regardless of gender.  Find another senior, find another cadet, or cancel the activity.

Also, it is NOT wrong for a senior to be alone with cadets at a non-overnight cadet activity, but he needs to be aware of the situation and be careful that he is never alone with any one cadet apart from the rest of the group.  Remember, the regs say that mixed-gender activities are NOT a problem, but being alone with a cadet is.

Yes...we understand 52-10....but then you get the over zelous types who interpet "encourage at least two senior members to be present at all cadet acitivites" to mean that senior members can't ever be alone in the same room with a cadet.

Take a typical meeting....the cadets are in the class room with the other senior member. SM B is in the office working working on SIMS or some such and then a cadet walks in to get to the files.  Some would jump up and down saying "CPP Violation!"

Or let's take that one step further same two SM and the cadet comes in for a CAPF-50 session.  Do we stop all acitity so the other SM can be present?

When I do the CPP breif for Level one....I give them the basic rules of thumb.....but I let them know that they are rules and thumb and not hard and fast show stoppers.

I had a similar conversation with one of my Senior Members about test adminstration.  She was told by the old Testing Officer that it was a "rule" that a parent can't oversee her/his own children's test.   While that is a good rule of thumb to stop the "CAP Parent Sysndorm" it is NOT a true "Test Adminstration Rule" as laid out by the regulations.

Same deal for the 52-10.  Let's err on the side of caution...but remember that we have a mission to do.

If you don't think it is close to home, consider that an ex-member of this forum was arrested for child porn.....

I just don't understand why anyone would argue with this.  I've been in two different regions where they have the female senior/female cadet rule.  Also, just because you don't know what happened doesn't mean that nothing happened.  Case in point, I found out three months after the fact that during a squadron FTX, there were some female cadets that were "tent hopping."  Obviously I didn't get all of the information but it was enough for me to act on it.  Now, the senior staff for the activity determines tent locations and the seniors are parked right in the middle.  It might not stop the activity but it just might deter it.  Or how about my ex-girlfriend sleeping with another senior during a CAP activity?  We have these kinds of rules to stop the stuff we don't know about...

If anyone thinks the rules will stop anything is mistaken.

Sure we will reduce it....but kids are ingenious little buggers and they out number the senior staff 10 to 1 (or more)!

The problem is...some will impose rules that stop operations...and that is a problem.

We should all be vigilant and we should use common sense to keep our cadets safe....beyond that we do the best we can.

If there were cadets that were "tent hopping", then that is a failure of the seniors to supervise, not a failure of the regs.

As far as your ex sleeping with another senior, that's entirely a personal issue and would never be fixed by any change to Cadet Protection Policy (I assume your ex was also a senior member)

Quote from: Eclipse on December 24, 2008, 06:41:03 PM

Quote from: SoCalCAPOfficer on December 24, 2008, 06:37:17 PMI insist that one of our female senior members remain until that ride comes. 

...and if they don't?

Which one gets disciplined?  The senior who has to get home, the female cadet for being "female", or the non-member parents for being late?

And its OK to be alone with a male cadet or for a female staffer to be alone with a male cadet?

I fully understand the sentiment and idea, but in practice its difficult to enforce. 

The problem rarely arises.  However the couple of times it has happened and I asked a female senior member to remain, they understood and there was no problem.   If they said no, then my next step would be to make sure another male senior member remained.

No it is not OK to be alone with any Cadet male or female, and Female members should not be alone with a male cadet either.   When I say "alone" , I mean in a closed room with the door shut.  If a cadet of any gender walks into the admin office where the door is open for all to see in, then of course they can go talk to the admin officer.

Regarding O-Flights, that is a different matter.  There is not much danger of a pilot pulling over to molest a cadet as would be the case in a car ride home.  I am a legal officer as well as a Sq CC therefore, I may tend to be more cautious, but I believe in using common sense also.   Cadet Protection has to be my number one job.

Quote from: Sqn72DO on December 24, 2008, 11:07:03 PMI've been in two different regions where they have the female senior/female cadet rule. 

I hope you're not talking about MER, because for as long as I was there, it was not a stupid rule.  Those who inflict the requirement of a same gender senior member present for same gender cadets to participate are doing nothing but slowing us down.

Like I said, I've abided by CAPR 52-10 to the letter and nothing has ever happened under my watch.  I will continue to do things the way I do and continue to be successful.  Only thing that will slow me down is an over zealous rule maker who doesn't have a grasp on how to be a good cadet programs leader.  I dare someone to tell me I run an unsafe program or take too many risks.  The fact is I do not coddle cadets, regardless of gender.  I treat them as cadets and I treat them equally. 

I would love for someone to have denied cadets like Steffanie Brainerd, Andalebe Yussuf, Liz Chock or Megan McIntosh the opportunity to partake in an overnight activity because there wasn't a female senior member.  Those women who are in their twenties and thirties now would laugh at you straight to your face.

CAPR 52-10 works without additional measures inflicted by someone trying to compensate.  Let the program work as it has for many years longer than most of us have been in CAP.

^^^MER didn't have the rule that I know about.

PCR and RMR both had supplements that required a female senior present for pretty much any activity involving female cadets.  I don't know if these supplements are still in effect because they are not listed on the websites anymore.  The point here is that you can always follow the reg to the letter but it can't hurt to "add on."

As for the shot about not having enough senior supervision, unless you are going to keep someone up all night to stop it from happening there isn't much more you can do other than the things that we have already implemented.  We had six officers there with about 12-14 cadets.  If someone wants to do something like that, there isn't much you can do.  They will find a way. 

Quote from: Sqn72DO on December 25, 2008, 12:28:45 AM
The point here is that you can always follow the reg to the letter but it can't hurt to "add on."

YES!  Sometimes it can hurt.

This issue raises it's head every now and again, but no one is ever able to produce any of the "legal" supplements or waivers that are supposed to exist; not a copy of a letter, not a link to a web page, nothing. Beyond that, all of these so called Unit Policies that some people are so fond of are nothing more than a discrimination suit waiting to happen.

CAPR 52-16, 1 Oct 2006 - This regulation defines the purposes of the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program and identifies policies that govern its administration. Supplements and waivers are not authorized, except as specifically noted, or when approved by National Headquarters.

ALso, it would seem that National would post any of these "approved" waivers or supplements (if they really do exist) somewhere on the National Web Site, like they do with the "approved" operations supplements.

Quote from: EMT-83 on December 24, 2008, 05:09:34 AM
Make that shouldn't be alone with cadets...

Cite please on that too.

Quote from: Sqn72DO on December 25, 2008, 12:28:45 AM
^^^MER didn't have the rule that I know about.

PCR and RMR both had supplements that required a female senior present for pretty much any activity involving female cadets.  I don't know if these supplements are still in effect because they are not listed on the websites anymore.  The point here is that you can always follow the reg to the letter but it can't hurt to "add on."

As for the shot about not having enough senior supervision, unless you are going to keep someone up all night to stop it from happening there isn't much more you can do other than the things that we have already implemented.  We had six officers there with about 12-14 cadets.  If someone wants to do something like that, there isn't much you can do.  They will find a way. 

PCR had that supplement? Are you sure, are you really sure? I would dearly love to see that supplement because there has never been such a thing.

I've been a cadet and senior in PCR for over 30 years and I have never heard of a supplement like that.

Quote from: NC Hokie on December 24, 2008, 10:17:59 PM

Quote from: EMT-83 on December 24, 2008, 08:53:02 PM
I think that there holes in 52-10 that need to be filled in, specifically one-on-one contact between cadets and seniors of any sex and cadets of the opposite sex.

The rules already address this; here's the relevant quote from CAPR 52-10:

QuoteEnsure that at least two "approved" senior members are present at all overnight cadet activities. Encourage at least two senior members to be present at all cadet activities (with the exception of chaplain counseling or cadet orientation flights).  This policy is for the protection of the senior members as well as the cadets.

The clear intent is that there should be no one-to-one contact between cadets and seniors, regardless of gender.  Find another senior, find another cadet, or cancel the activity.

?!?!

Two seniors are only required during OVERNIGHT activities.   If the "clear intent" was to prohibit one-to-one contact between Cadets and Seniors, the portion you cited wouldn't differentiate between ENSURE and ENCOURAGE as pertains to overnight versus non-overnight activities.

Quote from: NC Hokie on December 24, 2008, 10:17:59 PM
Also, it is NOT wrong for a senior to be alone with cadets at a non-overnight cadet activity, but he needs to be aware of the situation and be careful that he is never alone with any one cadet apart from the rest of the group.  Remember, the regs say that mixed-gender activities are NOT a problem, but being alone with a cadet is.

You are failing to differentiate between what is a problem (where the regs are violated) and what is not common sense (ensuring that multiple people are present whenever possible to avoid or mitigate potential problems).     There are no absolutes here, except for what the regs REQUIRE.    Sometimes circumstances dictate that you must be alone with a cadet - opposite sex or not; what is more important than the actual list of personnel at a given location at a given time is the CONDUCT of said members.  

If you do nothing wrong and a cadet decides to file a bogus charge, that cadet could do so even if another SM is present and simply claim that the other SM is covering it up.   For that matter, any cadet can CLAIM you were alone -- even if you weren't.   As long as you can't account for your own whereabouts..   So the next time you take a long sojurn to the restroom, just remember, a cadet might have it in for you...   ::)

When you think about it, there's a million ways that this can play out, and you can't prevent everything.  
So do the right thing, obey the regs, be smart about things, and you are likely to go through your entire CAP career without any problems.  

Where's that horse-beating graphic when you need it?

We had a cadets mom who joined when he did, so when our females went she did too. It did make it easier.

This was CYA, BIMD as a Senior er Officer.  >:D

Quote from: EMT-83 on December 24, 2008, 08:53:02 PM
I doubt that any are closet lesbians or cougars on the prowl.

Dude, if you have any "closet lesbians" in your squadon or group I HIGHLY doubt it's 'cause they want to wrangle some female cadets.  If you've got "closet lesbians" it's most likely because, in this messed up climate, they are scared of being CONSIDERED as possible molesters!!!!!  While no gender is absolved from pure indecency with our children EVER, please DO NOT flame "closet" lesbians as being on the prowl.  If there's anyone I know who protects our young (in general)... it's women -- no matter their orientation!

Quote from: Rob Goodman on December 25, 2008, 03:53:59 AM
We had a cadets mom who joined when he did, so when our females went she did too. It did make it easier.

Call me crazy, but I still try to steer away from hiring recruiting parents.  I have 10 negative experiences for every 1 good one.

Quote from: Stonewall on December 25, 2008, 04:34:19 AM

Quote from: Rob Goodman on December 25, 2008, 03:53:59 AM
We had a cadets mom who joined when he did, so when our females went she did too. It did make it easier.

Call me crazy, but I still try to steer away from hiring recruiting parents.  I have 10 negative experiences for every 1 good one.

One of the major risks with parent members is they tend to be there only for their kids, and when the kid cycles out, they leave too. Get too many of them cycling out at the same time and it can devastate the unit.  I've seen units go from being Spaatz factories one year to being at risk for losing their charter the next because even though it was a composite squadron there was no proper senior program to speak of and all the parents left when their kids left.

That doesn't mean we should not seek out more parental involvement, but Unit CC's need to be careful about the mix of parents vs. "regular members".

Quote from: tjaxe on December 25, 2008, 04:02:48 AM
If there's anyone I know who protects our young (in general)... it's women -- no matter their orientation!

I could post links to news stories of female schoolteachers right here in FL -- probably a dozen if I really tried -- who were caught molesting students.   

Quote from: Sqn72DO on December 25, 2008, 12:28:45 AM
PCR and RMR both had supplements that required a female senior present for pretty much any activity involving female cadets.  I don't know if these supplements are still in effect because they are not listed on the websites anymore. 

You're right, its no longer posted on the webpage.  Looks like the content/layout has changed since the last time I was there, maybe they just haven't moved it over yet.  Or (one can hope) that as the RMR Region Commander just changed that particular supplement will no longer be in place.

I never agreed with the rule as a female cadet, and it has created some last-minute scrambles as a senior in the program as well.  Actually, there was a time in my squadron when we had the opposite of the common problem, in that we only had two female seniors to supervise a bunch of male cadets, we had to scramble to find a male senior to come to overnight activities.

It comes down to using your discretion and common sense when selecting members and administering the program, as well as building a good relationship with your cadets and parents.  Male seniors aren't automatically child molesters just for being male, or even unqualified/unable to deal with "female issues".  I had an awesome male Cross Country and Track Coach that was able to deal with those sorts of things better than a lot of female coaches I've had.  We just need to be responsible adults, and willing to take action when and if it might be required.

I am very relieved to learn that I was given bum info and the issue at hand is NOT a squadron or squadron commander policy as originally believed, but a wing policy set forth by the previous wing commander from 2005.

Quote
The Florida Wing Cadet Protection Policy will be as follows:

1. In accordance with the provisions in CAPR 52-10 [22 DEC 03], two "approved" senior
members are required to be in attendance for all cadet programs or activities that involve cadets and
that include overnight periods. Regardless of gender, it is highly desired that one of the "approved"
senior members in attendance at the event be of the same gender as each cadet at the activity.

2. For all activities, cadets and seniors should be "buddied" with another member to help provide
protection, guidance and caring. This action should occur at the earliest stages of the activity.

3. If an activity begins without the intent of being an overnight activity (i.e.: missions) then the
policy stated in paragraph one (1) should be adhered to as closely as possible.

4. Parental involvement as outlined in CAPR 52-10 [22 DEC 03] is to be accomplished on a
regular basis.

5. When it is believed that a violation of the Cadet Protection Policy has occurred, contact
directly with the Wing Commander needs to immediate and in accordance with CAPR 52-10 [22 DEC
03].

6. Contact points for the Wing Commander are: 954-261-9779 <= Primary, or 954-438-5051 at
home.

7. This letter is to be posted on all Unit Bulletin Boards and briefed to all unit members every 90
days. Documentation of this event is to be made on the unit sign-in sheets.


__________________________
Florida Wing Commander
Subject: Cadet Protection Policy for Florida Wing Date: 09 Dec 05
Directed To: All FLWG Members PL No.: 05-03
Florida Wing Headquarters

Notice how it says "Regardless of gender, it is highly desired that one of the "approved" senior members in attendance at the event be of the same gender as each cadet at the activity."  Key words are "highly desired".  I would agree with this, it is the ideal situation.  But am I wrong in think that because it is desired, it does not make it mandatory?

I asked "that" Wing CC about that. it is NOT mandatory.

Quote from: BillB on December 26, 2008, 12:45:13 AM
I asked "that" Wing CC about that. it is NOT mandatory.

Even without asking, it clearly states "highly desirable", not mandatory.

Quote from: Stonewall on December 26, 2008, 12:35:47 AM
I am very relieved to learn that I was given bum info and the issue at hand is NOT a squadron or squadron commander policy as originally believed, but a wing policy set forth by the previous wing commander from 2005.

This is just another example of a Wing HQ staffer somewhere neglecting to do their homework first; there's no reason to implement a policy to augment a regulation that is already addressing the issue, especially when the regulation doesn't allow unapproved supplements to begin with.

Quote from: Stonewall on December 26, 2008, 12:49:54 AM

Quote from: BillB on December 26, 2008, 12:45:13 AM
I asked "that" Wing CC about that. it is NOT mandatory.

Even without asking, it clearly states "highly desirable", not mandatory.

...much like "should" vs. "shall" or "will", something that gets staffers tied in knows all the time, especially come SUI time.

The Wing Policy Letter that I posted above was from 2006 and referenced a CAPR from 2 versions ago (2003).  There has since been a revised 2006 and 2008 version.

On the 2008 version of 52-10, like it states on most regs, it says:

Quote
Supersedes CAPR 52-10, 11 January 2006.

How does this affect policy letters?  Would this void the previous wing commander's policy?  Wouldn't an updated letter need to be published by the current commander and be relevant to the new CAPR?

Quote from: Stonewall on December 26, 2008, 01:56:37 PM
How does this affect policy letters?  Would this void the previous wing commander's policy?  Wouldn't an updated letter need to be published by the current commander and be relevant to the new CAPR?

Kirt, the guardhouse lawyer in me says that if you were operating under 52-10 as written and someone tried to hammer you for not following the (now two revs out of date) wing policy, it would be a simple matter to squash that kind of thing as being unenforceable and out of date in any case.

As a rule, 52-10 is completely operative for me.  When I was in MI Wing, we were rather *serious* about the CPP.  Like militant serious.  Show up in my current wing and *literally* the first thing the local unit commander asks me is if I can give a cadet who lived about 1/2 mile from me a ride home from the meeting.  I refused on the grounds that it would violate the Cadet Protection Program.  This gentleman has the audacity to tell me that it was OK, since a) He had the cadet's mom's permission for him to be solo with another SM; b) he did it all the time; and c) the reg doesn't apply after the meeting.  I continued to flatly refuse and he got pretty irate with me that I wouldn't do what he was asking.

It seems to be always OK with mom and dad, right up to the point where the adult does that really, really, really bad thing with their son or daughter that they're suddenly not OK with.. Well, darn it, I'm not falling into that trickbag. No way.

Frankly, I adhere to a "no-lone-zone" rule with cadets, and if I do have to talk to a cadet "privately" I do so in full view of everybody else.  (thankfully, I don't have an office, so no worries there.)

I was the encampment commander once when we were short a female TAC officer.  We had female staff members, but no TAC.  (the officer who had been our expected TAC decided not to come to encampment that year, but only changed her mind about 3 weeks out...)

My wing commander at the time actually suggested that one of our courses of action was to cancel encampment, since everybody knows you're supposed to have a female officer present when you have females at an activity, according to the regs.  (*sigh* I had to school this guy -once-again- about the regs and why you can't discriminate on the basis of sex)

Thankfully, we wound up with two female officers who volunteered to help out, but one could only be there the first four days, the other could only be there the last four days.  Problem solved.  Plus, I had enough senior female cadets, including the cadet commander, and my other officers who were female, that we could have made it work out if we'd had to.

What a joke.

QuoteHow does this affect policy letters?  Would this void the previous wing commander's policy?  Wouldn't an updated letter need to be published by the current commander and be relevant to the new CAPR?

IIRC, whenever a regulation is updated, all supplements (and presumably policy letters) based on the old supplement need to be updated within some time frame. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2008, 09:50:31 PM

QuoteHow does this affect policy letters?  Would this void the previous wing commander's policy?  Wouldn't an updated letter need to be published by the current commander and be relevant to the new CAPR?

IIRC, whenever a regulation is updated, all supplements (and presumably policy letters) based on the old supplement need to be updated within some time frame. 

IIRC when there is a command change all policy letters are supposed to be reviewed by the incoming commander so they can decide which to keep and which to chuck.

Okay, I took the hit and looked it up in 5-4:

QuoteWhen the parent publication of a supplement or OI is revised/reissued, commanders must ensure the supplement or OI is revised and re-approved, if required, or rescinded with 6 months of the new parent publication's issue.

So, you don't necessarily have to reissue the supplement unless the parent publication changed something that your supplement was addressing, or probably if they changed the paragraph numbering or something else that made it difficult to tell exactly what part of the parent regulation was being supplemented. 

Quote from: tjaxe on December 25, 2008, 04:02:48 AM
If there's anyone I know who protects our young (in general)... it's women -- no matter their orientation!

Unless you're in the Hillsborough County, Fla., school system....

(With apologies to CAP members in Group 3, but you guys have Debra LaFave, et al....)

I didn't realize I could upload a .pdf.

Here is the wing policy in question.

I would say that if it was planned to be an overnight activity with female cadets, yes there should be at least one Female Senior as well.  For unplanned activities, try to get a Female SM- if can't don't worry too much.  Thats my understanding of it.

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 24, 2009, 03:25:38 AM
I would say that if it was planned to be an overnight activity with female cadets, yes there should be at least one Female Senior as well.  For unplanned activities, try to get a Female SM- if can't don't worry too much.  Thats my understanding of it.

And if there are male cadets and 2 female (and no male) seniors? Does that change things for you?

I translate "highly desired" as "nice, but not required."

Quote from: jimmydeanno on January 24, 2009, 03:47:27 AM
I translate "highly desired" as "nice, but not required."

Ditto.  And if it's deemed "required" by some interpretation then the overnight activity should be cancelled rather than a cadet banned from attending because of her gender.

Then there should be one male and one female SM.  So, no, it doesn't change, the only varible is the balancing the equation:
male cadets= Male SM
female cadets= female SM
male+female cadets=male + female SM

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 24, 2009, 03:52:06 AM
Then there should be one male and one female SM.  So, no, it doesn't change, the only varible is the balancing the equation:
male cadets= Male SM
female cadets= female SM
male+female cadets=male + female SM

Why should there be a female senior if there are females cadets on an overnight activity?

It's either required or it isn't, there is no maybe.

And are you sure you want just one male and one female senior member?

If a male senior member can't be alone in a room with a female cadet, how is it different if it's a female senior?

Questions to ponder maybe?


Remember, double standards suck....

Quote from: Stonewall on January 24, 2009, 03:09:07 AM
I didn't realize I could upload a .pdf.

Here is the wing policy in question.

I'd say this is a "should" vs. "will" situation, and not required, especially if you've made a best effort towards the "highly desired" choice.

Also, as Col. Levitch is no longer the Wing CC, and this supplement predates the current 52-10 & 16 by 3/1 years respectively, its void anyway.  Supplements, addendums, and policies enacted under a CC's signature are void unless re-submitted by the current commander.  We just had this discussion in my Wing about the same resubmission issue.  The same applies for any supplements to regs when the reg is updated - I believe its a 90-day window(..hint...hint 60-1).

Absent any other information or directives, I'd be comfortable going sans female seniors if none were available.

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 24, 2009, 03:52:06 AM
Then there should be one male and one female SM.  So, no, it doesn't change, the only varible is the balancing the equation:
male cadets= Male SM
female cadets= female SM
male+female cadets=male + female SM

"should" does not equal "will" in laws and regulations.

"Should" is generally the best-case scenario, but the use of the word specifically makes the directive optional.

As example, A unit CC should not be the Unit Safety officer, but he will not be the Finance Manager.

Quote from: PHall on January 24, 2009, 04:00:46 AM

Why should there be a female senior if there are females cadets on an overnight activity?

It's either required or it isn't, there is no maybe.

And are you sure you want just one male and one female senior member?

If a male senior member can't be alone in a room with a female cadet, how is it different if it's a female senior?

Questions to ponder maybe?

Remember, double standards suck....

I was speaking to the unplanned overnight activities, and for what the guidance was saying.  I agree with what you are saying, and in all cases, what you are proposing is the best all around.

It all depends on the case at hand.

A policy that states that a special set of circumstances must be in effect before female cadets can participate in an activity would be sexist and discriminatory. CAP has voluntarily attached itself to the principals of the DOD Non-discrimination policy, which forbids such things. Who in their right mind would tell a Cadet that they can't participate in an activity because they are girls? (!) Madness.  If you don't trust your Male Seniors with Female Cadets, the problem is not in a policy; Its the weak-kneed Deputy Commanders for Cadets who are afraid to tell a Senior ( or anyone else)  that he does not trust them around his Cadets and to find another area of CAP to play in. The same standards should apply to Female/Male situations.

Major Lord

Has anybody heard of Title 7? That pretty much spells out any such rules that exclude a female or male cadet because of gender are against the law.
This is the sort of thing that causes mega litigation, and by the way Title 7 applies to all of us in CAP as we are a federaly chartered corporation.

Quote from: Stonewall on January 24, 2009, 03:09:07 AM
I didn't realize I could upload a .pdf.

Here is the wing policy in question.

Poorly written, I think:

QuoteRegardless of gender, it is highly desired that one of the "approved"
senior members in attendance at the event be of the same gender as each cadet at the activity.

This requires at least one SM to be both genders simultaneously if both male and female cadets are present -- if you read it literally.  :)

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 27, 2008, 03:25:20 AM

Quote from: tjaxe on December 25, 2008, 04:02:48 AM
If there's anyone I know who protects our young (in general)... it's women -- no matter their orientation!

Unless you're in the Hillsborough County, Fla., school system....

(With apologies to CAP members in Group 3, but you guys have Debra LaFave, et al....)

Point of Order, Sir, but you are in Group 3 now as well.  :)    However, you do speak the truth.  And it's all over, not just in one County and not just in Florida.   Lots of female teachers have been found to have had improper relationships with students; La Fave was just the first to make the national news.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2009, 04:07:21 AM

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 24, 2009, 03:52:06 AM
Then there should be one male and one female SM.  So, no, it doesn't change, the only varible is the balancing the equation:
male cadets= Male SM
female cadets= female SM
male+female cadets=male + female SM

"should" does not equal "will" in laws and regulations.

"Should" is generally the best-case scenario, but the use of the word specifically makes the directive optional.

Correct.  You SHOULD have a female SM present if there are to be female cadets because it simply makes sense.    Contraband checks, moral support, and (god help us) the onset of menstruation at a bivouac would be MUCH better handled by a female SM and would go a long way towards making the cadet feel at ease.   

However, you do not HAVE to have a female SM present in that circumstance either per this (outdated) policy letter nor current regulations -- and many have stated why this is true (exclusionary/sexist/whatever).   


As an example - during the recent encampment, I transported 6 cadets at different times to the hospital.    On the run with the sole female cadet, a female SM accompanied me.     There was no reason that she HAD to -- I remained outside the curtain while the cadet was examined, etc.   However, the cadet had someone who could have remained with her had it been necessary, and neither of the SMs had to worry about being accused of impropriety.   Net effect - I am sure that everyone felt better.   So while I could have gone it alone, it made more sense to have the female SM there - even if there was no policy behind it.

 

Is it ideal to have SM of both genders present when there are cadets of both? YES

Is it always possible? NO

I think the CPPT attempts to balance these realities. 

A number of years ago, our squadron ran an activity where we provided a number of services for a reunion of the Doolittle raiders. (very cool) We had about 4 Seniors and 30 Cadets, spread out over many acres of OP's area. Three of the Cadets were female, and none of the Seniors were female. One female cadet called her parents, and told her father ( A senior Member) that she was alone with Cadet boys. The cadets' Mother called to protest, and demanded 100%, full time, unbroken visual surveillance of her daughter. Negative Ghost rider! We told her to come pick her daughter up. We needed cadets to Provide supervision for the public, not be be housed as daycare at a CAP activity so the parents could go skiing in Tahoe.

The lesson learned there, was that although there were no female SM's to babysit the female cadet, most CAP female Cadets are mature enought to cross the street by themselves and eat when they are hungry. Nonetheless, a phone call to the parents to tell them of our circumstances ( non-extant female support) would have been a good idea. If they choose to keep their beloved daughters away from those evil predatory S/M's, that on their head, not ours. If they complain about our lack of supervision, we can hand  them applications for sponsor membership, which should clear them out faster than a congressman and accept a bribe.

Major Lord

Quote from: NIN on December 26, 2008, 02:47:44 PM
Frankly, I adhere to a "no-lone-zone" rule with cadets, and if I do have to talk to a cadet "privately" I do so in full view of everybody else. 

+1 My Personal Rules: Counsel out of earshot, but not out of eyesight of other folks.  No on-on-one situations.

And, as much as I appreciate the sentiment of "sharing the load" and keeping CP going, NO cadet activities with only 1 SM.  Yes, the reg says it's ok.  But as Maj. C said, what happens when someone gets sick or injured? End of Personal Rules

To the original topic, we've discussed this before.  IME, the idea for same-sex chaperones often gets introduced to a unit by adults with scouting backgrounds.  It's not in the reg, and you cannot legally exclude female cadets from activities for this reason.

Our squadron used to have the opposite problem - 2 female SM chaperones on over-night activities with male and female cadets.  Guess we should have left the male cadets at home.  ;D >:D >:D

Quote from: Fifinella on January 25, 2009, 11:34:25 PM

+1 My Personal Rules: Counsel out of earshot, but not out of eyesight of other folks.  No on-on-one situations.

First, let me thank you for the work you have done with cadets.  It is truly appreciated.  I wish most seniors would do as much as you have done.

That said, I'd like to suggest that you work to raise your personal comfort level in dealing with our cadets.

Obviously, every cadet and every situation will be different.  But a "I'll never, ever be alone with a cadet" rule potentially does a disservice to the cadet and to you.

I know when I think back on my youth, I was fortunate enought to have some unbelievable and life-changing mentors. And a few of them were CAP senior members.  And from time to time, they would take me aside and counsel me.  Sometimes (OK, usually), I had done something stupid and needed guidance; sometimes I actually did something well and appreciated positive feedback in a private setting.

But these mentoring sessions could not have occurred in the midst of the hustle and bustle of a squadron meeting or on the parade ground at encampment.  They occurred in the office of a CO or tactical officer; in the parking lot after everyone else had gone, or even at the pizza place where we went after meetings.

I can't imagine what life would be like if my high-school and college teachers had adopted a similar rule.  No staying after class for tutoring or extra work.  No helping the coach out after practice by putting stuff away.  No time late at night in the computer lab with the TA.

Earlier this month I was fortunate to attend an RCLS graduation.  Something went askew with a cadet's transportation and since he lived on my way home, I was asked if I could give the troop a ride.  I did, and the cadet slept for the entire two-hour ride.


I'm not suggesting that we become overly familiar with the cadets.  They are not our buddies, friends, or children.

But they are students who look to us for guidance, mentoring, and training.  And, IMHO, from time to time that might include some "one-on-one" time in an appropriate setting.


Cadets want a challenge.  Train them.

Just don't treat them like an IED waiting to detonate the moment another senior wanders out of sight.

Quote
And, as much as I appreciate the sentiment of "sharing the load" and keeping CP going, NO cadet activities with only 1 SM.  Yes, the reg says it's ok.  But as Maj. C said, what happens when someone gets sick or injured?[

I appreciate the fact that you think that our volunteer leaders "got it wrong" when they wrote the regulation the way they did.

But the answer to your question really isn't very mysterious.  If someone gets injured or ill to the point where the only senior present needs to leave the activity, then either another senior arrives to fill in, or the activity terminates.

That is certainly part of the risk of running activities without additional seniors.  But to fail to hold challenging and fun activities simply because you don't have more seniors than the regulation requires seems unfair to the troops.

I suspect this is at least one small part of the reason that cadets in some units complain that their unit "never does anything." 

Again, thank you for the work you have done with our cadets.


Ned Lee
CP Enthusiast

Quote from: PHall on December 25, 2008, 02:42:08 AM

Quote from: Sqn72DO on December 25, 2008, 12:28:45 AM
^^^MER didn't have the rule that I know about.

PCR and RMR both had supplements that required a female senior present for pretty much any activity involving female cadets.  I don't know if these supplements are still in effect because they are not listed on the websites anymore.  The point here is that you can always follow the reg to the letter but it can't hurt to "add on."

As for the shot about not having enough senior supervision, unless you are going to keep someone up all night to stop it from happening there isn't much more you can do other than the things that we have already implemented.  We had six officers there with about 12-14 cadets.  If someone wants to do something like that, there isn't much you can do.  They will find a way. 

PCR had that supplement? Are you sure, are you really sure? I would dearly love to see that supplement because there has never been such a thing.

I've been a cadet and senior in PCR for over 30 years and I have never heard of a supplement like that.

Our group commander requires that a Female SM must be at an over night activity.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 24, 2008, 05:05:42 AM

Quote from: EMT-83 on December 24, 2008, 04:52:43 AM
Everyone knows that seniors can't be alone with cadets, male or female, except as permitted by regulation. You just follow the standard without giving it any more attention than it deserves.

Cite, please.

Hint: Another wives tale - the above is not addressed on any level in the regs.

its is with our group command

Quote from: SM-MADDOG on January 26, 2009, 10:15:30 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on December 24, 2008, 05:05:42 AM

Quote from: EMT-83 on December 24, 2008, 04:52:43 AM
Everyone knows that seniors can't be alone with cadets, male or female, except as permitted by regulation. You just follow the standard without giving it any more attention than it deserves.

Cite, please.

Hint: Another wives tale - the above is not addressed on any level in the regs.

its is with our group command

You're missing the point - that is not a regulation, that is a local policy, one which may not stand up if a cadet filed a complaint.  As has been stated, we aren't allowed to discriminate based on gender because of supervisory issues.

With that said, in an all-volunteer organization, we can't compel seniors to act outside their personal risk tolerance, which means you can file all the complaints you want, and issue all the directives you need to, and you still may wind not having
that bivouac, etc. 

At which point the next higher echelon has to make some hard decisions about those currently in command - do you gut an otherwise successful program because a senior doesn't want to supervise females overnight?  Not an easy question, especially considering the number of other people generally waiting in the wings to be a commander.

No im not, I know that. Knew it back in 06. I was just saying the Col, He says different. That's what I was saying. And as I said before, just because someone has a high rank dont mean anything. Hes wrong on it. Yet continues to issues those type of directives.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 26, 2009, 01:45:17 PM

Quote from: SM-MADDOG on January 26, 2009, 10:15:30 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on December 24, 2008, 05:05:42 AM

Quote from: EMT-83 on December 24, 2008, 04:52:43 AM
Everyone knows that seniors can't be alone with cadets, male or female, except as permitted by regulation. You just follow the standard without giving it any more attention than it deserves.

Cite, please.

Hint: Another wives tale - the above is not addressed on any level in the regs.

its is with our group command

You're missing the point - that is not a regulation, that is a local policy, one which may not stand up if a cadet filed a complaint.  As has been stated, we aren't allowed to discriminate based on gender because of supervisory issues.

With that said, in an all-volunteer organization, we can't compel seniors to act outside their personal risk tolerance, which means you can file all the complaints you want, and issue all the directives you need to, and you still may wind not having
that bivouac, etc. 

At which point the next higher echelon has to make some hard decisions about those currently in command - do you gut an otherwise successful program because a senior doesn't want to supervise females overnight?  Not an easy question, especially considering the number of other people generally waiting in the wings to be a commander.

Quote from: Ned on January 26, 2009, 01:12:11 AM

Quote from: Fifinella on January 25, 2009, 11:34:25 PM
And, as much as I appreciate the sentiment of "sharing the load" and keeping CP going, NO cadet activities with only 1 SM.  Yes, the reg says it's ok.  But as Maj. C said, what happens when someone gets sick or injured?[

I appreciate the fact that you think that our volunteer leaders "got it wrong" when they wrote the regulation the way they did.

But the answer to your question really isn't very mysterious.  If someone gets injured or ill to the point where the only senior present needs to leave the activity, then either another senior arrives to fill in, or the activity terminates.

That is certainly part of the risk of running activities without additional seniors.  But to fail to hold challenging and fun activities simply because you don't have more seniors than the regulation requires seems unfair to the troops.

I suspect this is at least one small part of the reason that cadets in some units complain that their unit "never does anything." 

Ned,

I appreciate your opinion very much.  Just a small rebuttal.  I did not imply National "got it wrong".  I merely stated that my "personal minimums" are a bit more strict.  I see this as being no different from a pilot adopting a personal min of, say, 1000 Ft. AGL in a situation where the FAA permits a min of 500 Ft. AGL.

I have been at a cadet activity where a cadet (again with a known condition his parents did not disclose) became physically violent, and a danger to self and others.  Thank God there were more than 1 SM present.

I have personally never had to cancel an activity (and we have *plenty*) due to my personal rule of 2 SM's minimum.  The one time it was a show-stopper, I got assistance from another squadron, and on we went.

I think we agree that mentoring cadets and providing experiences for them through which they can expand their horizons and grow as individuals is the most rewarding part of this program.  We just appear to disagree on our personal minimums for the way in which we conduct those activities.  The dialogue allows others to consider both perspectives, and make their own choices (within the framework of the regulations, of course).

Thank you for the dialogue.

Respectfully,

Judy

Here is my dilemma:

Both the current 52-10 and the 2005 CPP Letter from wing clearly allow for 2 "qualified" senior members be present for overnight activities, regardless of gender.  However, it seems that some individuals, unfortunately the ones "in charge" interpret this in their own version to say "a female senior member must be present if female cadets are present".  Or,  they want to create extra work that is not necessary if we simply follow the regulations.

In response to an email I sent to someone on wing staff, not the DCP, they replied with this: "the interim, maybe getting a permission from parents explaining there may not be a female senior member present and their consent for their daughter to attend."  Additionally, this person is going to contact NHQ to get their take on the issue.  To me, it is a non-issue and NHQ's take on this "situation" is clearly stated in the current 52-10.

This whole thing blows my mind.  And the worst part is, the handful of people making this so difficult and more work than it is, are not even CP-minded people.  Perhaps that's why they're making issues out of non-issues, because they just_don't_know.

I'd say in your case you need to address this directly with the Wing CC to close the issue once and for all, obviously respecting the chain.

In most states there are only three people in the chain that actually matter - unit/group/wing CC's, everyone else is entitled to their opinion without the weight of authority.

And of those three, the Wing CC is the only one who can make people sit down and color.

You might also enlist the assistance of parents who are free to call whomever they want and cite the real rules versus opinions.

Quote from: Stonewall on January 29, 2009, 02:58:54 PM
This whole thing blows my mind.  And the worst part is, the handful of people making this so difficult and more work than it is, are not even CP-minded people.  Perhaps that's why they're making issues out of non-issues, because they just_don't_know.

In every similar situation I've been in, the "well-intention, uninformed" are generally the root cause of most problems.

Quote from: Stonewall on January 29, 2009, 02:58:54 PM
Here is my dilemma:

Both the current 52-10 and the 2005 CPP Letter from wing clearly allow for 2 "qualified" senior members be present for overnight activities, regardless of gender.  However, it seems that some individuals, unfortunately the ones "in charge" interpret this in their own version to say "a female senior member must be present if female cadets are present".  Or,  they want to create extra work that is not necessary if we simply follow the regulations.

In response to an email I sent to someone on wing staff, not the DCP, they replied with this: "the interim, maybe getting a permission from parents explaining there may not be a female senior member present and their consent for their daughter to attend."  Additionally, this person is going to contact NHQ to get their take on the issue.  To me, it is a non-issue and NHQ's take on this "situation" is clearly stated in the current 52-10.

This whole thing blows my mind.  And the worst part is, the handful of people making this so difficult and more work than it is, are not even CP-minded people.  Perhaps that's why they're making issues out of non-issues, because they just_don't_know.

I have seen this sort of thing time and time again.  We have the regs and we have rules of thumb.  We have interpetations of said reg and we have people who can't tell the difference between what is required and what is a good idea.

I had this conversation with my testing officer the other day.  She was told that she could not proctor her own son's tests.  No such regulation exists.  But it is not necessarilly a bad rule of thumb.  As commander though I told here I trusted her and told her to issue the test. 

We see this all the time .....no lone rules, can't give a cadet a ride rules, got to have females present rules, have to have seperate billeting rules.  While I agree that a lot of these are good ideas for CYA if nothing else....but they are NOT requirements.

So in Stonewalls case....contact your wing CC and get clarification.  His word is law though...any commander may make regulations more strict (with a few exceptions).

At the same time....we need everyone to understand....that we can't exclude females from our activities.  So IF the wing has a "Female escort required for female cadet" rule and you can't get a female escort......then the event MUST NOT TAKE PLACE.....it must be canceled....you can't tell the female cadet they can't attend.  If you do then you are breaking the law, CAP regulations and setting CAP up for a law suit.

Drop that little nugget in the wing CC's lap and I think these sort of rules (or their interpetation) will quickly disappear.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 29, 2009, 04:29:09 PM
So in Stonewalls case....contact your wing CC and get clarification.  His word is law though...any commander may make regulations more strict (with a few exceptions).

At the same time....we need everyone to understand....that we can't exclude females from our activities.  So IF the wing has a "Female escort required for female cadet" rule and you can't get a female escort......then the event MUST NOT TAKE PLACE.....it must be canceled....you can't tell the female cadet they can't attend.  If you do then you are breaking the law, CAP regulations and setting CAP up for a law suit.

Drop that little nugget in the wing CC's lap and I think these sort of rules (or their interpetation) will quickly disappear.

I think the opposite is the case - you don't cancel the activity because of an ill-placed local SOP, you drop the SOP in favor of the activity.

I don't believe that putting a "female supervision" requirement like this is in place is within a Wing CC's power, or any other CC for that matter, specifically because of the above dynamic that it potentially creates.  Making my assertion stick, however, would require a region-level or higher complaint that was sustained.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2009, 04:35:00 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 29, 2009, 04:29:09 PM
So in Stonewalls case....contact your wing CC and get clarification.  His word is law though...any commander may make regulations more strict (with a few exceptions).

At the same time....we need everyone to understand....that we can't exclude females from our activities.  So IF the wing has a "Female escort required for female cadet" rule and you can't get a female escort......then the event MUST NOT TAKE PLACE.....it must be canceled....you can't tell the female cadet they can't attend.  If you do then you are breaking the law, CAP regulations and setting CAP up for a law suit.

Drop that little nugget in the wing CC's lap and I think these sort of rules (or their interpetation) will quickly disappear.

I think the opposite is the case - you don't cancel the activity because of an ill-placed local SOP, you drop the SOP in favor of the activity.

I don't believe that putting a "female supervision" requirement like this is in place is within a Wing CC's power, or any other CC for that matter, specifically because of the above dynamic that it potentially creates.  Making my assertion stick, however, would require a region-level or higher complaint that was sustained.

Eclipse, I absolutely agree with your thought on this, HOWEVER, IF an SOP is in place -- and not "dropped" -- THEN I believe lordmonar's statement is the only feasible option.  As I've said before, NO cadet should be excluded from an event because of her (or his!) gender.

Quote from: tjaxe on January 29, 2009, 05:35:09 PM
Eclipse, I absolutely agree with your thought on this, HOWEVER, IF an SOP is in place -- and not "dropped" -- THEN I believe lordmonar's statement is the only feasible option.  As I've said before, NO cadet should be excluded from an event because of her (or his!) gender.

We've got SOP's all over the place that violate regs, either in spirit or letter, and it takes informed leaders within the organization to challenge them with the actual facts and regs to get changes made.

In a lot of cases making those challenges is risky politically, which is why they continue to stand until someone with less to lose, or more authority makes the challenge or change.

The "new guy" who "doesn't know any better" is generally the best candidate for these challenges.    ;D

For those of you who are curious, here are the requirements for the UK Air Cadets:

For a "General" activity, minimum of 1 adult member for each 10 cadets.
For an "Adventurous" activity, minimum of 1 adult member for each 4 cadets.

For over-night activities, if in a hard structure, no requirement for same-sex chaperone, but one must be "contactable".  If staying in tents, there must be a same-sex 18 year old or older Cadet Warrant Officer or higher grade cadet or adult member.

Yup, cadets can fill the requirement.  All 18 yr old Air Cadets receive training equivalent to our CPPT, plus non-discrimination and "Duty of Care" training, and may then fill this supervisory requirement.

Minimum number of adults the local squadron/CC is comfortable having for a given activity: 3.

FWIW

I got some more feedback from my inquiry.

Quote
I have spoken to both Col Jim Linker, NHQ IG and Gerry Rozenzweig, NHQ EEOC and IG.  Both are of the opinion they CAPR is correct only required to have 2 senior members.  We can not turn away a female cadet because we do not have a female senior, however, we can ask other non-members, females, to attend.

I still believe we must protect our cadets first and the senior members as well.  Maybe the idea of having the parents of the females cadet agree to their daughter attending, after explaining there are no female seniors, even as the mother of the cadet to attend.  I hope this answers your questions.  As always, please come to me for any matters which may effect CAP and our cadets.

See the bold part?  Okay, so we can have non-member females attend?  Just any female who is not a member?  So it is better to have a non-CAP female without CPP "certification" be present if we have female cadets than to not have a female adult at all?  This is confusing me.

Seems like most people I ask about this policy always bring up the argument of "we must protect our cadets at all costs". 

I just want to know, in my wing, can I hold an overnight activity if female presents wish to attend but there will not be a female senior member present.  That's all I want to know.

I will invite and encourage female seniors to attend.

I will meet the requirements of having two qualified senior members present, regardless of gender.

I do not want to buck the system or break a wing policy, but it is clear that even the 2005 wing policy.  That said, the verbal and email responses I receive always seem to counter what written doctrine states.  I don't want to go against my Sq/CC, but if he says we MUST have female seniors adults for female cadets to attend, I will cancel the activity, or at least my participation.  It's the principle of the matter.

Quote
I have spoken to both Col Jim Linker, NHQ IG and Gerry Rozenzweig, NHQ EEOC and IG.  Both are of the opinion they CAPR is correct only required to have 2 senior members.  We can not turn away a female cadet because we do not have a female senior, however, we can ask other non-members, females, to attend.

I still believe we must protect our cadets first and the senior members as well.  Maybe the idea of having the parents of the females cadet agree to their daughter attending, after explaining there are no female seniors, even as the mother of the cadet to attend.  I hope this answers your questions.  As always, please come to me for any matters which may effect CAP and our cadets.

That is 100% wrong, and in direct violation of clear, mature regulations.

At a minimum parents must be sponsor members. (Should go without saying).

Quote from: Eclipse on January 30, 2009, 02:59:32 PM

Quote
I have spoken to both Col Jim Linker, NHQ IG and Gerry Rozenzweig, NHQ EEOC and IG.  Both are of the opinion they CAPR is correct only required to have 2 senior members.  We can not turn away a female cadet because we do not have a female senior, however, we can ask other non-members, females, to attend.

I still believe we must protect our cadets first and the senior members as well.  Maybe the idea of having the parents of the females cadet agree to their daughter attending, after explaining there are no female seniors, even as the mother of the cadet to attend.  I hope this answers your questions.  As always, please come to me for any matters which may effect CAP and our cadets.

That is 100% wrong, and in direct violation of clear, mature regulations.

At a minimum parents must be sponsor members. (Should go without saying).

Yep!!  I thought you couldn't do ANYTHING with cadets without CPPT at a minimum.  If the Wing allows non-members on overnights -- even if the adult is the cadet's parent -- then the Wing is in direct violation of our Regs and -- goddess forbid -- if that adult did anything wrong there would be MAJOR hell to pay.  I wish "the powers that be" in your Wing would just BACK OFF and go along with the Regs National has provided.  Sheesh.  (Actually, I wish the "powers that be" at National was reading this overzealous Wing Reg bullcrap.)   >:(

I would like to input here:

When I was a wee little commie (new term i made up for comms  ;)) I had to do MRO training.  Now that being said I was paired with a senior member from the local church and it was perfectly fine  and no awkward moments.. heck even the wing commander stopped by to chat.  Here's the best part we also had a female cadet that needed the training did the wing commander bust in saying "CPP VIOLATION AOOGA AOOOGA(something I got from MY wing)?" No he stopped by and said good work now that is a prime example showing that 52-10 works as is.

Also what considers a senior member "qualified"?

Quote from: SARADDICT on February 06, 2009, 01:01:01 AM
I would like to input here:

When I was a wee little commie (new term i made up for comms  ;)) I had to do MRO training.  Now that being said I was paired with a senior member from the local church and it was perfectly fine  and no awkward moments.. heck even the wing commander stopped by to chat.  Here's the best part we also had a female cadet that needed the training did the wing commander bust in saying "CPP VIOLATION AOOGA AOOOGA(something I got from MY wing)?" No he stopped by and said good work now that is a prime example showing that 52-10 works as is.

Also what considers a senior member "qualified"?

You are aware that the term 'commie' is generally known to Americans as a derogatory term for a Communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist), right? Generally used during the Cold War to refer to the Soviets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union)....

Just thought I'd ask....

Quote from: SARADDICT on February 06, 2009, 01:01:01 AM
Also what considers a senior member "qualified"?

An ID card that does not say temporary on it. You get that by passing the FBI screening and completing level 1

Quote from: davidsinn on February 06, 2009, 04:26:30 AM

Quote from: SARADDICT on February 06, 2009, 01:01:01 AM
Also what considers a senior member "qualified"?

An ID card that does not say temporary on it. You get that by passing the FBI screening and completing level 1

Don't even have to complete level 1.  The temporary card is just there until you pass your screening.

Quote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2009, 04:39:30 AM

Quote from: davidsinn on February 06, 2009, 04:26:30 AM

Quote from: SARADDICT on February 06, 2009, 01:01:01 AM
Also what considers a senior member "qualified"?

An ID card that does not say temporary on it. You get that by passing the FBI screening and completing level 1

Don't even have to complete level 1.  The temporary card is just there until you pass your screening.

That's true. To be qualified though you still need level 1.

Quote from: davidsinn on February 06, 2009, 03:12:23 PM
That's true. To be qualified though you still need level 1.

Quote from: 52-16 1-3.C(2)
(2) All senior members must complete the screening process outlined in CAPM 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership, and complete Cadet Protection Program Training (CPPT) before working with cadets (see CAPR 50-17, Senior Member Professional Development Program). Members who have not completed CPPT, as recorded in e-Services at www.cap.gov, will not act as the primary supervisor at cadet activities, or associate with cadets in any way without the in-person supervision of a senior member who has completed CPPT and the screening process (see CAPR 52-10, Cadet Protection Policy).

Don't need level one.  To work with cadets [alone] you need to pass the screening and complete CPPT.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on February 06, 2009, 03:45:41 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on February 06, 2009, 03:12:23 PM
That's true. To be qualified though you still need level 1.

Quote from: 52-16 1-3.C(2)
(2) All senior members must complete the screening process outlined in CAPM 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership, and complete Cadet Protection Program Training (CPPT) before working with cadets (see CAPR 50-17, Senior Member Professional Development Program). Members who have not completed CPPT, as recorded in e-Services at www.cap.gov, will not act as the primary supervisor at cadet activities, or associate with cadets in any way without the in-person supervision of a senior member who has completed CPPT and the screening process (see CAPR 52-10, Cadet Protection Policy).

Don't need level one.  To work with cadets [alone] you need to pass the screening and complete CPPT.

I stand corrected.

Quote from: DC on February 06, 2009, 02:49:30 AM

Quote from: SARADDICT on February 06, 2009, 01:01:01 AM
I would like to input here:

When I was a wee little commie (new term i made up for comms  ;)) I had to do MRO training.  Now that being said I was paired with a senior member from the local church and it was perfectly fine  and no awkward moments.. heck even the wing commander stopped by to chat.  Here's the best part we also had a female cadet that needed the training did the wing commander bust in saying "CPP VIOLATION AOOGA AOOOGA(something I got from MY wing)?" No he stopped by and said good work now that is a prime example showing that 52-10 works as is.

Also what considers a senior member "qualified"?

You are aware that the term 'commie' is generally known to Americans as a derogatory term for a Communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist), right? Generally used during the Cold War to refer to the Soviets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union)....

Just thought I'd ask....

Yes I am aware and find myself constantly explaining it to people but I still like it.

Quote from: SARADDICT on February 06, 2009, 09:26:19 PM

Quote from: DC on February 06, 2009, 02:49:30 AM

Quote from: SARADDICT on February 06, 2009, 01:01:01 AM
I would like to input here:

When I was a wee little commie (new term i made up for comms  ;)) I had to do MRO training.  Now that being said I was paired with a senior member from the local church and it was perfectly fine  and no awkward moments.. heck even the wing commander stopped by to chat.  Here's the best part we also had a female cadet that needed the training did the wing commander bust in saying "CPP VIOLATION AOOGA AOOOGA(something I got from MY wing)?" No he stopped by and said good work now that is a prime example showing that 52-10 works as is.

Also what considers a senior member "qualified"?

You are aware that the term 'commie' is generally known to Americans as a derogatory term for a Communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist), right? Generally used during the Cold War to refer to the Soviets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union)....

Just thought I'd ask....

Yes I am aware and find myself constantly explaining it to people but I still like it.

It might make sense, given the generally-understood meaning of the term and the fact that you're in the USAF auxiliary, to simply stop using it.

^^^^
Not a generally good word to use around CAP, USAF, and the military.  ;)

As a 22 year communications specalists.....the proper term Is "Comm Weenie".

I know no one has commented on this in a long time but for those asking the question about a regulation or rule like this it is against the Civil Air Patrol non-discrimination policy . I figured someone on here may have required a solid answer to the question about this rule being wrong or right and so I asked and got the answer for you.Talk with your wing IG or Legal Officer and if that don't work region and if that don't work contact nationals. The phone list is here: http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/nhq_contacts.cfm

I also want to ask the question as to why it is a good idea to have a female senior member there. It does not add any more protection than having a second senior member. A regulation such as this does not account for people of the same gender being together nor does it account for the likelihood that second senior runs off with a male cadet or female. Adding a female does not add any extra protection with the exception of maybe making the female cadet feel more comfortable. In most instances it allows both seniors to be female, and then what would you do with the male cadets?

Bottom line is the CPPT is there so that members are educated to not put ourselves into a situation where become compromised. If you feel uncomfortable then you are likely wrong in the way you interact with cadets.  More than likely if someone who has this type of rule they have been in, or heard of a senior's story, where the senior put themselves in a compromising position but claimed that is was because of gender. That or if you were the senior, you don't understand that what you did was wrong. You blame the action of what the cadet did in order to rationalize how you acted. (See chapter 7-9 of the old "Leadership 2000 and Beyond Volume 2" Book for cadets.) Trust me I've seen many accusations in my wing and in the end the senior did something stupid and wouldn't admit they did anything wrong. It's the case almost 99% of the time. As someone said on this forum once, "Lets stop treating cadets like they are an IED" and treat them as equals (regardless of rank) with the respect and dignity that they deserve.

~7

Quote from: srg9832 on September 04, 2011, 04:55:59 PM
I know no one has commented on this in a long time but for those asking the question about a regulation like this it is against the Civil Air Patrol non-discrimination policy . Talk with your wing IG and if that don't work region and if that don't work contact nationals. The phone list is here: http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/nhq_contacts.cfm

It is not a violation of non-discrimination (or anything else) if a unit cannot find a senior member comfortable with chaperoning a mixed-gender activity,
and all the IG's, directives, and training in the world will not change that.

Misinformed CC's and staff harboring wives tales are one thing, but at the end of the day, we can't force a member to do anything outside their personal ORM.

We do not need to be resurrecting old topics to cross-post items.