amendments to cadet contracts

[Lt Buzzbear]

I was just wondering what the general consensus is about a SQDN commander of a composite sqdn making amendments to the already in use cadet promotion contracts?  I am aware of one commander that is attempting to put into place that the cadets have all sorts of other requirements to complete before they can be promoted.  (not knowing the full extent of the amendments, here are some examples...)

cadets have to complete the A/C handling, wing runner, and having to attend SAREX's before they are  eligible to promote to Wright Brothers, (different additions for each promotion level.

And if this is not acceptable to whom, and how would opne go about basically getting this commanders posterior kicked back into the program that is approved.

[davidsinn]

That doesn't sound right to me but I can't seem to find the cite confirming it. I'll keep working on it.

[coudano]

First of all, there is no promotion 'contract'.  52-16 stipulates the minimum requirements for each promotion, but nobody is 'entitled' to receive a promotion based on making 'performance minimums', in the contract sense of the word.

Second of all, commanders are neither authorized to, nor forbidden from, requiring things addition to what is listed,
nor using rank as a lever to motivate compliance out of their people.

Technically if the squadron commander orders cadet snuffy to complete AGH, and cadet snuffy fails to comply, the commander has grounds to discipline snuffy for insubordination, including retaining snuffy in grade.


FWIW I require things of my cadets in addition to the printed program requirements, including
A) NCO's have responsibilities to rate and maintain contact with their assigned airmen
B) Officers have responsibilities to plan and execute a squadorn activity every achievement
C) I make my cadets do writing and speaking assignments beyond the minimum requirements as they progress

Those are all very arguably applicable to the cadet program.
As are AGH and wingrunner (in terms of cadet o-rides) --btw, you have gliders at or near your unit??  jealous!!!

I do basically disagree with forcing cadets to do anything related to ES, however.
Cadets should not be required to do ES any more than Senior members should be required to work in CP.  They are each extra-curricular and optional to each-other.

[IceNine]

It's nice to want things...

Cadet's that are deserving of the grade should not be retained for nonsense requirements. 

The requirements are clear, no one should be making it harder for the cadets to progress.  Expecting them to perform at grade level is appropriate.

[FARRIER]

In this particualr example, not knowing anything else, I disagree. My solution, ask him/her where in the regulations does it state that he/she can add that particular requirement. Again, not knowing anything else, the person could be well intentioned, but, misguided.

Respectfully,

[FARRIER]

This is the only place I could see where one could consider adding that requirement:

CAPR 52-16 5-9f

Activities. Cadets must participate actively in unit activities during this phase. See paragraph 4-4a.

Its open ended and the squadron being a composite squadron, ES is a unit activity. I'm CP rated but no longer active in that track, so if I'm reading this wrong, I'm open for correction.

Respectfully,

[CAPSGT]

Cadet promotion "contracts" are a local thing, but at one point were advocated by CAP NHQ as a "best practice."  Since there is no standard contract, they can be anything the commander wants it to be.  It could be as simple as "I will test monthly until I pass the tests for my next promotion" or "if I have not completed the requirements for promotion in 2 months, I will seek out a mentor."  It could also clearly spell out what constitutes things like "active participation" or specific objectives the commander wants to see to demonstrate in a quantifiable way that a cadet demonstrates the maturity and ability to accept the responsibilities of their new rank.

[Al Sayre]

He can do it by saying that these are the requirements for "active participation" in ABC Squadron.  That will work until XYZ Squadron down the street says "just meet the minimums", at which time he will likely see a mass exodus.  Forcing people to jump through no-existant hoops doesn't benefit anyone for very long...

[NC Hokie]

I'll give a slightly diferent take on this...

Without getting into the "legality" of these contracts with respect to CAP regulations, it is generally considered to be bad form to arbitrarily change an already signed contract (the cadets DO sign these, right?).

[CAPSGT]

Al Sayre: You'd be surprised.  At my squadron we are constantly defining ambiguities and holding people to standards.  Our cadets take it as a matter of pride and it certainly hasn't hurt our numbers even with 5 other squadrons within a 30 minute drive (one of which is only about a 10 minute drive away).

NC Hokie:  I wasn't reading what the OP said as changing an already signed contract.  I was reading it as changing what a standard contract template says.  I could be wrong though.  Of course, it could be both.

[Tim Medeiros]

Are these the contracts your talking about?

http://www.capmembers.com/cap_university/best_practices_exchange.cfm/performance_contracts?show=entry&blogID=245

[Nathan]

I would tread kind of lightly on using the "participating actively" clause to justify adding solid requirements for promotion.

I can see both arguments. If a commander decided to require the 101 card to promote to C/SSgt, then he might justify it by saying any cadet who fails/chooses not to get the qualification to not be participating actively in the program he is running.

However, I would make the opposite argument that the clause should be interpreted as "participating actively" in the cadet program already outlined by CAPR 52-16. IE, as long as they are participating actively in cadet activities, then upon completion of standard prerequisites, they will promote. A commander may choose to have additional aspects to his/her program, even "requiring" cadets to do something like get the 101 card under threat of disciplinary action. But because the criteria for promotion are already spelled out, it seems inappropriate to interpret "participating actively" as "obtaining possibly arbitrary requirements set by the commander". A cadet can participate actively and still fail to get a 101 card.

I understand that commanders have a pretty flexible authority, and proving that a cadet is being held back for failing to meet an outside requirement would be hard to prove one way or the other. But as an issue that goes behind the philosophy of commanding a cadet program, the requirements outlined by 52-16 are in place for a reason. No one who wrote the rules believed it to be necessary that a C/SSgt hold an ES requirement, and I can't think of any way how an ES card would make one C/SSgt a better cadet than a C/SSgt without a card.

[Lt Buzzbear]

Yes these are the contracts i am speaking of...
http://www.capmembers.com/cap_university/best_practices_exchange.cfm/performance_contracts?show=entry&blogID=245

and yes i realize that they are basically a cadets contract with themselves.  But to require an Arnold cadet to additionally complete:
aircraft handling, wing runner mentoring, CAP ES-116 FEMA 100, CAP-ES 117
just may be going too far.

or mentoring, selected duty position in the squadron, complete familiarization and prep training for one ES achievement, AND participate in a SAREX???

and require these or refuse to promote the cadet??  doesn't seem right to me!!!

Many of the kids that participate in CAP in our are CAN NOT afford the SAREX crap, they just barely get the uniforms required (BDU'S) because we are getting the old crap from the USAF and others to give out 2nd or 3rd hand to these kids.

it just don't seem right, and i am trying to find a way TO STOP THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!

[RiverAux]

I can only imagine the vehement opposition that a proposal to base senior member ranks on ES participation would cause on this board.  Oh no, I don't have to imagine it:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1425.0

[Nathan]

I can only imagine the vehement opposition that a proposal to base senior member ranks on ES participation would cause on this board.  Oh no, I don't have to imagine it:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1425.0

Okay... so... what? Are you just looking to spread the love from one of your flamewar threads to another one that has so far been civil? We aren't talking about the senior program. If we were, it would not only be in a different thread, but in a different forum altogether.

[RiverAux]

Well, I suppose you didn't actually read the other thread since your characterization of it was so inaccurate.  The point being that many here get freaked out by requiring ES participation.  There are also numerous threads decrying special local requirements on promotions that aren't supported by national regulations.   

[HGjunkie]

I actually had a couple of these completed (Wing runner, CAPT 116/117, ICS100) before or shortly after I was made a C/SSgt. Really, I think it was more me wanting to broaden my CAP educational range outside of Leadership and AE. If a cadet really really really wants to do these, encourage/mentor them to help them accomplish their goals (They're not really that hard IMO).

[Lt Buzzbear]

I actually had a couple of these completed (Wing runner, CAPT 116/117, ICS100) before or shortly after I was made a C/SSgt. Really, I think it was more me wanting to broaden my CAP educational range outside of Leadership and AE. If a cadet really really really wants to do these, encourage/mentor them to help them accomplish their goals (They're not really that hard IMO).

And you are right, i have had a few "uber-cadets" who have asked for the help to get all of these tackled, and we provided them the mentor for that...but to REQUIRE these before the cadet can promote is my issue.

[tsrup]

Yes these are the contracts i am speaking of...
http://www.capmembers.com/cap_university/best_practices_exchange.cfm/performance_contracts?show=entry&blogID=245

and yes i realize that they are basically a cadets contract with themselves.  But to require an Arnold cadet to additionally complete:
aircraft handling, wing runner mentoring, CAP ES-116 FEMA 100, CAP-ES 117
just may be going too far.

or mentoring, selected duty position in the squadron, complete familiarization and prep training for one ES achievement, AND participate in a SAREX???

and require these or refuse to promote the cadet??  doesn't seem right to me!!!

Many of the kids that participate in CAP in our are CAN NOT afford the SAREX crap, they just barely get the uniforms required (BDU'S) because we are getting the old crap from the USAF and others to give out 2nd or 3rd hand to these kids.

it just don't seem right, and i am trying to find a way TO STOP THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!

I don't see a cost issue.
If the "SAREX crap" you are referring to is the 24 hr gear, then you can put that to the way side. 
one does not need 24 or 72 hr gear to be qualified as MSA or MRO.  Even the UDF qualifications limit the amount of gear required.  There are ways to be active at a SAREX without being on ground team. 
And if it was a signed contract between the cadet and the squadron commander or DCC, then the Cadet was fully aware of what was expected of him/her.

We can argue till we're blue in the face on weather or not that falls in line with CAP regulations, but it was in fact an agreement that the cadet entered into.  And if it truly is a money issue instead of motivation, then there are ways to overcome and solve that.  Obtaining a 101 card is a lot simpler than some are making it out to be. 
Take a few online tests (which we facilitate for at our squadron, or the local university computer lab for those who don't have access at home) then print it off.  There is little to no monetary investment in becoming GES qualified.  CAPT 117, CAPT 116, and aircraft ground handling are simple tests that require very little time commitment.     

That being said, ES participation is completely voluntary at our squadron, however ES training is held as part of our curriculum.  Wether or not a cadet wants to apply that training at a SAREX or REDCAP is entirely his or her prerogative.  However, SAREX participation does fulfill our requirements for active participation.  I don't presume to say that what your squadron is doing is wrong strictly because it is different.   

If there is a legitimate complaint as to how your squadron operates, it would suit you best to take care of it within your chain of command, rather than air your obvious dissatisfaction and your squadrons dirty laundry on public forum.   

[ol'fido]

Has the squadron commander completed all these additional requirements? Have all the seniors in the squadron completed these additional requirements? IMHO, we should stick with the requirements in 52-16, but if they are going to add additional requirements, they need to lead by example.

[Nathan]

We can argue till we're blue in the face on weather or not that falls in line with CAP regulations, but it was in fact an agreement that the cadet entered into.

Pshaw, I don't buy that argument. What choice does a cadet have? If they don't sign the contract that they will complete something beyond the call of the established regulations, are they still permitted to promote? Are they even allowed to join the program as a cadet?

Ignoring the unenforceable nature of any contract signed by a minor (or cadet, in most cases), I don't see how any cadet would have a choice if they wish to be in CAP. Without a choice, you can't really justify your position with that argument.

And again, can you please explain how you get from "participate actively" to "completion of extracurricular activities"? Running in a race is participation, but completing it is more than that. By regulation, if a cadet is showing up to their meetings and participating to the extent of the program that 52-16 requires, then you can't really claim that a cadet is failing to participate in the program when you personally require more. They ARE participating in the cadet program. They are not participating in a SAREX, which is not an established part of the program, at least not as far as 52-16 is concerned. I see nowhere that gives a commander the ability to redefine the cadet program according to additional rules they think should exist, but were not included.

Again, I understand that commanders are given quite a bit of flexibility in determining whether a cadet is ready to promote. But that isn't license to assume that you can make absolute requirements that the writers of 52-16 did not see as a necessary component of the program. I imagine the spirit of the clause was to ensure that commanders had the option to hold cadets back for aspects that are hard to define legally, such as maturity issues or antagonistic conduct. When you read it, I don't see how "participating actively" can somehow be interpreted to mean that commanders can add solid requirements where none already exist.

The point is, if a commander thinks there should be an additional requirement for promotion, then they should do what everyone else does when they have a new proposal: they send it up the chain. This IS one of those things that the cadet programs people at NHQ are supposed to discuss. I assume that if they're given the authority to write 52-16, that means THEY have the authority to set program requirements, not the individual commanders.

[lordmonar]

The participate actively.....can be interpreted to include all aspects of CAP not just the Cadet Program.

It is written vaguely, because not all squadrons have the aactivity levels.

Squadron X has 10-12 SAREX a year....where Squadron Y may only have 2.
Squadron X may have a busy week end cadet activity schedule where Squadron Y only does the once a week thing.

Obviously the CC in the OP's squadron wants his cadets to be active in ES, Glider activities and Aircraft handling.

So he said  "everyone needs to do this".

On the whole I don't see a problem with it.

We want our cadets at Nellis Composite Squadron to do the same sort of stuff.
We too have a "participate actively" rule....that means one non-meeting activity since your last promotion.
This can be a SAREX, Color Guard Practice, Community Service Project, AE event, Weapons shooting, O-ride or anything else CAP related.
It forces the cadet to do more then just going to the meetings.....which is clearly what 52-16 wants our program to be.

[tsrup]

What I'm pointing out, is that it isn't the cadet complaining about it, or the cadet taking the appropriate actions to resolve it.

I do not use a promotion contract, but maybe like most things, we are blowing this way out of proportion.

The logical hypothesis is that this promotion contract was simply an outline of what is expected of a cadet to promote that was IAW 52-16.  One of such requirements for "active participation in unit activities".  A simple contract that is IAW 52-16 presented to a cadet when they enter the program would alleviate a lot of issues regarding what is expected of a cadet. 

  If I was to write one, It would include expectations or information a cadet should know like:
    -Uniform wear
    -Cadet Progression requirements
    -Active Participation.   

But as to defining "active participation in unit activities".  It says activities, not "meetings".  If the SAREX was one of such unit activities, the it would not be unreasonable to expect that you have active participation in it.
       
I think defining what Active Participation really is to your cadets goes a long way to encourage their participation, and to set a benchmark of what is expected so the regulation is applied evenly and justly.

Maybe I wouldn't make it a contract per se, but I would type something up to the effect of, "this is the minimum expected of you, if you need any further information consult 52-16". 

[FlyTiger77]

The point is, if a commander thinks there should be an additional requirement for promotion, then they should do what everyone else does when they have a new proposal: they send it up the chain. This IS one of those things that the cadet programs people at NHQ are supposed to discuss. I assume that if they're given the authority to write 52-16, that means THEY have the authority to set program requirements, not the individual commanders.

How do you reconcile this position with a commander's prerogative to add to but not take away from regulations to suit his/her needs? I haven't reviewed CAPR 52-16 to see if its language precludes changes by commanders, but if it doesn't, then does not the commander maintain his/her prerogative with the only requirement being to notify his/her boss?

Disregard, the regulation precludes supplementation and waivers.

[RiverAux]

Hmm, so we're fine with unofficial unit policies adding local rules to cadet promotion procedures, but we can't actually formalize it (and make higher official aware of the policy) by making a OI of it?  That doesn't make much sense. 

[Nathan]

What I'm pointing out, is that it isn't the cadet complaining about it, or the cadet taking the appropriate actions to resolve it.

Come on. You're expecting a cadet, especially ones that are newer and lower-ranking, to know how to file a formal complaint? Or even IF they can? Or, if they know both of the above, that they have the courage to stand up to a senior member commander about it? We have a hard enough time getting cadets to report hazing issues. It's unrealistic to justify a questionable policy simply because a bunch of cadets haven't made any complaints that you've heard yet.

But as to defining "active participation in unit activities".  It says activities, not "meetings".  If the SAREX was one of such unit activities, the it would not be unreasonable to expect that you have active participation in it.

That's somewhat fair, but following that logic, we can justify some pretty outrageous demands. For instance, would cadets be forced to go to squadron movie night showing a film with which they disagree morally? What if the SAREX happens only once a year, and it's on the weekend before finals? Wouldn't a commander be able to call it a unit activity and hold back any cadet who chose to study instead?

That's the problem. That line of thinking grants commanders the ability to make the kinds of policy that is supposed to be limited to the people who write the regulations. Commanders have unlimited authority to have the cadets do pretty much whatever they want, so long as they call it a unit activity. And while there may not be a squadron that requires every cadet to participate in color guard and the colorguard must practice for three hours a day, your logic would ALLOW such a squadron to exist.

If you look at "unit activities" being naturally limited to "cadet unit activities", as in, activities that specifically are dictated by the cadet program, then that problem goes away. No unit would be able to make any unreasonble request of a cadet, and training is standardized for the entire country (which, I imagine, is probably the reason 52-16 exists). There are two ways to interpret it, but one makes far more sense when you take into account that it is written in a regulation that exists to set the criteria for the cadet program. It seems silly for 52-16 to have a clause that could, in theory, make it nearly irrelevant.

I'm still trying to understand how the addition of requirements for the cadet program is handled differently than the addition of requirements for any other publication. If we wanted to add a piece to a uniform, it requires approval through 39-1. If we want to add a specialty track, we have to go through the appropriate channels. And if we want to add a requirement for cadet promotion, we would have to send it up the chain for approval. It seems like to interpret the regulation as giving the unit commanders the power to bypass the chain of command in the implementation of the cadet program is unrealistic.

[tsrup]

Come on. You're expecting a cadet, especially ones that are newer and lower-ranking, to know how to file a formal complaint? Or even IF they can? Or, if they know both of the above, that they have the courage to stand up to a senior member commander about it? We have a hard enough time getting cadets to report hazing issues. It's unrealistic to justify a questionable policy simply because a bunch of cadets haven't made any complaints that you've heard yet.

I was merely pointing out the possibility that maybe the cadet isn't complaining because it isn't a problem.   It would not be unheard of for a Senior Member on this board to make a problem out of nothing, and present it as a gross breach of policy or a poor policy in desperate need of change. 

But as to defining "active participation in unit activities".  It says activities, not "meetings".  If the SAREX was one of such unit activities, the it would not be unreasonable to expect that you have active participation in it.

That's somewhat fair, but following that logic, we can justify some pretty outrageous demands. For instance, would cadets be forced to go to squadron movie night? What if the SAREX happens only once a year, and it's on the weekend before finals? Wouldn't a commander be able to call it a unit activity and hold back any cadet who chose to study instead?

If a Cadet's only opportunity to fulfill his/her outside-of-meeting activity is a once a year SAREX, then that is a problem with the unit, not the fault of the Cadet.  Any reasonable person would also see that a squadron movie night does not fulfill any mission of Civil Air Patrol (depending on content).  As for not being able to attend said once a year activity because of finals, there is leeway in 52-16 for excused absences. 

The examples you provide above are not without merit, but are by no means indicative of a Cadet's failure to do anything, but rather a poorly run program.   

That's the problem. That line of thinking grants commanders the ability to make the kinds of policy that is supposed to be limited to the people who write the regulations. Commanders have unlimited authority to have the cadets do pretty much whatever they want, so long as they call it a unit activity. And while there may not be a squadron that requires every cadet to participate in color guard and the colorguard must practice for three hours a day, your logic would ALLOW such a squadron to exist.

again if the only opportunity for a cadet to participate outside of squadron meetings is color guard, then that is the failure of that unit.

If you look at "unit activities" being naturally limited to "cadet unit activities", as in, activities that specifically are dictated by the cadet program, then that problem goes away. No unit would be able to make any unreasonble request of a cadet, and training is standardized for the entire country (which, I imagine, is probably the reason 52-16 exists). There are two ways to interpret it, but one makes far more sense when you take into account that it is written in a regulation that exists to set the criteria for the cadet program. It seems silly for 52-16 to have a clause that could, in theory, make it nearly irrelevant.

I'm still trying to understand how the addition of requirements for the cadet program is handled differently than the addition of requirements for any other publication. If we wanted to add a piece to a uniform, it requires approval through 39-1. If we want to add a specialty track, we have to go through the appropriate channels. And if we want to add a requirement for cadet promotion, we would have to send it up the chain for approval. It seems like to interpret the regulation as giving the unit commanders the power to bypass the chain of command in the implementation of the cadet program is unrealistic.

I do not suggest that anything be added to CAPR 52-16, merely that it's entirety be enforced in word and in spirit. 

Broadening a cadet's horizons and exposing him/her to everything in Cadet programs falls within that Spirit.

I look at things like Color Guard practice, SAREXs, CLA, NCO academy, Wing Conference, AE weekend, Rocketry, or any of the multitude of cadet activities as Electives.  You are not required to any specific one of them, but you have to do something to fulfill the requirement.

[lordmonar]

Nathan,

One of the reasons whey the reg is written the way it is.....is to allow the commanders the flexibility to make the call of what is "particpates acitively".

We already have a blanket waiver for all school related acitivites.

It is not fair to use the slippery slope argument here.

If a commander is going outside both the letter and the spirit of the regulations we have (or should have) wing and group staffers keeping an eye on such things and reigning him in.

One of my beefs with the Regs Hounds out there is that they get too wound up over "But it's not in the regs!".

The commander wants to encourage his cadets to get out and do things......so he makes them do the GES, Aircraft Handleing and Wing Runner training and go to one SAREX.

Gee.......that means he is making them do all of 6 hours of training and one week end in a six+ month period.

If the one SAREX a year that his squadron/wing holds is on the week end before finals.....I don't really think the commander would have made it a requirment in the first place.

[capchiro]

Gentlemen, it boils down to the fact that you can't add supplements to the Reg's and any additional requirements are doing just that.  No ifs, ands, or buts about it.  This program is based on Reg's so it is administered the same in my squadron as yours.  There is no room for creativity.  All cadets have the same requirements for promotion no matter where their squadron is.  Any deviation from the Reg's should be reported up the chain of command and/or the IG.  As a wise Wing Legal Officer once explained to me, one is not to think Outside of the box when it comes to the Reg's.

[lordmonar]

The point is that it is in the regulation:

e. Activities.
(1) Goal. The goals of the Cadet Program's activities element are for cadets to apply their leadership skills, explore aerospace careers and display their overall enthusiasm for the cadet ethic.
(2) Methods. Each squadron decides what activities it undertakes based on the interests of its leaders and members. All units should strive to be well-rounded and offer activities encompassing all three CAP missions. The cadet staff should help plan and lead unit activities. Cadet activities should be "hands-on," enabling cadets to apply what they have learned in the other four program elements. Activities may be conducted locally, regionally and at the national level (see chapter 4). All activities must emphasize safety (see paragraph 1-4). Units may establish an activities committee to help manage cadet events. In Phases III and IV, cadets serve as mentors and instructors, respectively, helping junior cadets advance in leadership, aerospace education or physical fitness.
(3) Evaluation Instruments. Each activity should have an educational or training goal and at least one objective that is specific and measurable, but there is no standard, formal test instrument for cadet activities. However, commanders should seek feedback from cadets and staff on ways to improve local activities. For major events, activity directors should provide their commander with an "after action report" that discusses the activity's successes and lessons learned. Units should keep these reports on file to aid in planning subsequent activities.

[Nathan]

I was merely pointing out the possibility that maybe the cadet isn't complaining because it isn't a problem.   It would not be unheard of for a Senior Member on this board to make a problem out of nothing, and present it as a gross breach of policy or a poor policy in desperate need of change.

It's a possibility, but not a counter. We can't assume that cadets will let the seniors know when they're doing something wrong. Otherwise, I expect we'd see a lot more senior members with their rank insignias aligned correctly.  Rather, if a cadet finds that they are unable to promote due to an unreasonable demand on their particular situation that is not dictated by regulation, they are more likely to just leave the program without necessarily explaining the problem in such a way that registers a need for change.

If a Cadet's only opportunity to fulfill his/her outside-of-meeting activity is a once a year SAREX, then that is a problem with the unit, not the fault of the Cadet.  Any reasonable person would also see that a squadron movie night does not fulfill any mission of Civil Air Patrol (depending on content).  As for not being able to attend said once a year activity because of finals, there is leeway in 52-16 for excused absences.

I don't think it's really relevant whether it's a "squadron problem" or not. The regulation cited by lordmonar above does not state that any squadron cadet program is COMPELLED to conduct extracurricular activities. Indeed, I would be surprised if every squadron in CAP was actually capable of consistently doing more than one or two outside activities.

But whether it's a squadron problem or not is irrelevant when we're trying to figure out how we should dissect the intent of the regulation. A "problem unit" would, by your argument, STILL be able to justify holding back a cadet for missing the one SAREX available, or for a cadet that cannot dedicate the time to practicing for color guard several hours a night. There is nothing in the regs forcing a unit to conduct multiple activities so that all cadets likely have a chance to participate, but, by your interpretation, the regs do allow a unit to punish a cadet for failing to participate in rare events.

Interpreting the concept of "participating actively in unit activities" as the standards CAPNHQ dictated seems to be a much better way to go. As far as 52-16 is concerned, if a cadet is doing well on tests, undergoing mentoring, attending at least one encampment, succeeding in PT, and so forth, then he/she is considered to be a successful cadet. They did not feel that ES participation was a requirement for progress in the cadet program, so it doesn't make sense to assume that "active participation" can be expanded to include ES. The activities cadets NEED to participate actively in are already defined. Everything else has a "should strive to be" and "may include" in front of it, marking that while it's a good idea to include and endorse these activities, they were not considered to be essential to a cadet's development.

I do not suggest that anything be added to CAPR 52-16, merely that it's entirety be enforced in word and in spirit. 

Broadening a cadet's horizons and exposing him/her to everything in Cadet programs falls within that Spirit.

I look at things like Color Guard practice, SAREXs, CLA, NCO academy, Wing Conference, AE weekend, Rocketry, or any of the multitude of cadet activities as Electives.  You are not required to any specific one of them, but you have to do something to fulfill the requirement.

You mention that a failure to conduct numerous outside activities is a failure of the unit, not the cadet, which is acceptable, but doesn't really help the cadet at said squadron. On the other hand, I would say that if a leader feels that the only way to get cadet participation in programs is to compel participation under threat of stagnation, then that's a failure of the leadership.

If your color guard program, SAREX, NCO academy, rocket weekend, or whatever isn't good enough to get cadets to willingly participate, then the leadership needs to find out WHY. Most cadets love to participate in those types of activities, and if they aren't, then forcing them to participate isn't likely going to make them enjoy the activity any more. Perhaps cadets aren't participating because it's a busy time in school, or a religious holiday. Perhaps the instructor is horribly boring, and cadets don't feel like they get too much out of it. Perhaps the parents don't have the time/motivation to drive them at that time/that far. If you can't find a way to get cadets to attend a SAREX, it's going to be very difficult to convince me, based on my experience in the cadet program, that the cadets wouldn't want to go to another SAREX that is defined to be "awesome."

Whatever the issue, you shouldn't have a hard time getting people to volunteer to attend a well-run, well-staffed SAREX. Forcing them to go in order to promote isn't a solution, it's just an indication that there is a problem and that the leadership hasn't figure out what that problem is.

I'm not bagging on you specifically, but rather pointing out the general flaw in the logic that any other solid requirements should be added to the criteria already in place on a local commander's authority. There are people who have the specific job of deciding what cadets MUST do to progress. They are further up the chain of command than the squadron commander. There is no logic, then, that would allow a regulation written by the cadet programs team to give the local commander authority to do their job for them. A commander has a specific set of jobs to do, and it's not to take on the responsibilities of people who wrote the regulation commanders are obligated to follow.

A leader's job is to inspire people to do things. Cadets are extremely easy to inspire to do EC activities if they feel that those activities are fun and worthwhile. There are very, very few times in CAP where a cadet-related activity survives when it isn't that fun, and in those cases, it's usually made mandatory (like Safety Down Day). Forcing cadets to do things they don't find fun just because you think they're missing out is ignoring the problem, not fixing it.

[capchiro]

Nathan, got to agree with you 100%.  Such a shame though, I was just considering requiring my cadets to have their private pilot's license prior to promotion to Mitchell..  Oh well, another day, another dollar.. Just think, all of my Cadet Officer's walking around with Pilot Wings on.. Wait, they couldn't get past the Check ride for the most part due to age..  Darn, another good idea shot down by the Regulation Nazis.  When you have standing Regulations, think Inside the box, not Outside the box, lest Wing Legal smite the down.. 

[coudano]

The reg ensures that all cadets of a certain rank have met similar minimum requirements, not that they have allattained EQUAL training and evaluation standards.  Discounting squadrons that skip, improperly implement, or flat out ignore minimums of course.

Its impossible.
A unit with a grammar nazi will grade cadet writing hardwr and perhaps even teach them better than a unit with no such expert, same for public speaking, drill, and review boards

A commander will make the leadership expectations discretional judgement ENTIRELY different at one unit than another.

[tsrup]

The point is that it is in the regulation:

e. Activities.
(1) Goal. The goals of the Cadet Program's activities element are for cadets to apply their leadership skills, explore aerospace careers and display their overall enthusiasm for the cadet ethic.
(2) Methods. Each squadron decides what activities it undertakes based on the interests of its leaders and members. All units should strive to be well-rounded and offer activities encompassing all three CAP missions. The cadet staff should help plan and lead unit activities. Cadet activities should be "hands-on," enabling cadets to apply what they have learned in the other four program elements. Activities may be conducted locally, regionally and at the national level (see chapter 4). All activities must emphasize safety (see paragraph 1-4). Units may establish an activities committee to help manage cadet events. In Phases III and IV, cadets serve as mentors and instructors, respectively, helping junior cadets advance in leadership, aerospace education or physical fitness.
(3) Evaluation Instruments. Each activity should have an educational or training goal and at least one objective that is specific and measurable, but there is no standard, formal test instrument for cadet activities. However, commanders should seek feedback from cadets and staff on ways to improve local activities. For major events, activity directors should provide their commander with an "after action report" that discusses the activity's successes and lessons learned. Units should keep these reports on file to aid in planning subsequent activities.

this.

[RiverAux]

"should strive" does not equal a requirement that it be done in CAP regulatory language.

[lordmonar]

"should strive" does not equal a requirement that it be done in CAP regulatory language.

True.

But again.....in this specific instance.....requiring cadets to complete GES, Wing Runner, and Aircraft Handling Training and attending one SAREX withing the first six months (or so) of their members is not all that onerous.

Is it an additional requirement?  Sure is.

On the other hand.....

The commander could just order everyone to do the training and to attend the SAREX....and anyone who does not is disobeying and order and does not deserve to be promoted to C/SrA.

I guess it is all how you look at it.

[NCRblues]

You mean to tell me, we have found ANOTHER gray area in the regs..... my god, i have never head of such a thing...

[RiverAux]

The commander could just order everyone to do the training and to attend the SAREX....and anyone who does not is disobeying and order and does not deserve to be promoted to C/SrA.

Wow, I can't wait to tell the Wing Commander that he can order all those seniors who are militantly only involved in cadet programs and AE that they are now required to also participate in ES in order to get their promotions.  Sure, wings aren't allowed to modify the promotion requirements, but wouldn't this fall under their authority to restrict promotions to those who are performing in an exemplary manner?

It is just ridiculous that any squadron commander thinks that they can just make up their own promotion system.   Yeah, the reg might not be as tightly written as it should, but it is clear to me at least that this is not what NHQ intended either for cadets or for seniors. 

[lordmonar]

If you are not following directions of the commander.....you are not performing in an exemplary manner.......

As far as the regs being clear......I guess it is a matter of interpretation.

If I as the DCC put on activities that enhance the Cadet Program......I expect that my cadets to participate actively.....it that happens to be at an ES activity as well.....it is clearly part of both the regulation and NHQ's intention to get CADETS involved in ES.

This is not to say that you at your squadron can't do things differently.

At my squadron, as I said before....we only require to cadet to attend one non-meeting activity since their last promotion.  This can be ES, Color Guard, O-rides, AE events, Air Shows, Community Service, Weapons Training, even cadet staff meetings.

This is not asking too much and is clearly part of the regulations.  We spend a lot of time coordinating and running these programs for the cadets....so we expect them to take part in some of them.

As far as requiring senior members to attend ES or do other activities outside their comfort zones......well as we all say....promotions are not a right....they are earned.  My squadron is a composit squadron and we have three mission areas we need to take care of.  If someone can't/won't take part in all our missions then they are not fully supporting the squadron operations........and may not be deserving of promotion.

[tsrup]

The commander could just order everyone to do the training and to attend the SAREX....and anyone who does not is disobeying and order and does not deserve to be promoted to C/SrA.

Wow, I can't wait to tell the Wing Commander that he can order all those seniors who are militantly only involved in cadet programs and AE that they are now required to also participate in ES in order to get their promotions.  Sure, wings aren't allowed to modify the promotion requirements, but wouldn't this fall under their authority to restrict promotions to those who are performing in an exemplary manner?

It is just ridiculous that any squadron commander thinks that they can just make up their own promotion system.   Yeah, the reg might not be as tightly written as it should, but it is clear to me at least that this is not what NHQ intended either for cadets or for seniors.

we're talking cadet's here,

apples and oranges.

find a regulation that stipulates that a senior should strive for all three missions and that would not be the case.  However I don't see it. 

[RiverAux]

find a regulation that stipulates that a senior should strive for all three missions and that would not be the case.  However I don't see it.

No problem.  CAPR 39-2 3-1(a) defines what an active senior member is and say that you must be active to be eligible for promotion. 

a.
Active Member. A member who regularly attends meetings, performs a specific duty assignment, meets training requirements, and participates in the activities of his or her unit. An active member may wear the CAP uniform and compete for grade advancement

So, this requirement to participate in unit activities is exactly the same as referenced earlier for cadets. 

So, my contention is that if a squadron commander thinks they can require ES participation of cadets they could just as easily require it of seniors before approving their promotions.  I obviously think such a move would be totally against the spirit of CAP's promotion regulations, but for those who want to stretch the regulations past their breaking point, they could do it to seniors as well. 

[tsrup]

find a regulation that stipulates that a senior should strive for all three missions and that would not be the case.  However I don't see it.

No problem.  CAPR 39-2 3-1(a) defines what an active senior member is and say that you must be active to be eligible for promotion. 

a.
Active Member. A member who regularly attends meetings, performs a specific duty assignment, meets training requirements, and participates in the activities of his or her unit. An active member may wear the CAP uniform and compete for grade advancement

So, this requirement to participate in unit activities is exactly the same as referenced earlier for cadets. 

So, my contention is that if a squadron commander thinks they can require ES participation of cadets they could just as easily require it of seniors before approving their promotions.  I obviously think such a move would be totally against the spirit of CAP's promotion regulations, but for those who want to stretch the regulations past their breaking point, they could do it to seniors as well.

However in 52-16 it clarifies activities include the three missions, however in regulations applicable to senior members, "activities" not further defined.

You're trying to apply cadet logic to SM.

 

[Nathan]

As far as the regs being clear......I guess it is a matter of interpretation.

If I as the DCC put on activities that enhance the Cadet Program......I expect that my cadets to participate actively.....it that happens to be at an ES activity as well.....it is clearly part of both the regulation and NHQ's intention to get CADETS involved in ES.

Well... that's not really what's going on here, though. The regs require active participation in the program, and the program requirements are outlined in the same regulation. You say that you enhance the program, which is fine. But your expectations of cadets to participate in the non-required enhancements you make to the outlined program cannot be construed as the same expectations that CAPR 52-16 requires in terms of participation. Again, a squadron commander does NOT have the authority to supercede a regulation, and adding on requirements that were not already in place without going through the chain is doing just that.

1) The program requirements have already been decided and recorded in CAPR 52-16.
2) Squadron commanders are encouraged to have outside activities, but such activities are NOT REQUIRED for the cadet program to be within regulations.
3) CAPR 52-16 requires that cadets participate actively in the program, which again, is outlined within the regulation.
Conclusion: Optional activities do not cease to be optional simply because the squadron commander say so.

This isn't exactly a new case. When commanders are given the authority to make specific changes, they are spelled out. IE, in CAPM 39-1, specific commanders are given authority to allow specific uniform items in specific situations. There is little ambiguity when it comes to these items. Likewise, commanders are given specific authority on how to assign cadets within the chain of command, and if they choose, to leave spots vacant. These allowances are SPECIFICALLY mentioned, so commanders have that authority. In CAPR 52-16, there is no specific authorization that commanders may obligate cadets to fulfill additional requirements at the commander's discretion. It seems as if that was the intent, then it would have been made extremely clear, probably in a single sentence.

Under the interpretation that a commander can compel attendance to activities that are not covered within the regulation, commanders get a massive amount of power to change the program. As long as he/she still requires successful completion of testing, then your interpretation would not allow us to stop a commander from forcing cadets to attend expensive, unnecessary training, or from requiring absolutely perfect attendance. If a commander decided that all cadets must participate in his new recruiting campaign, and every cadet that didn't successfully recruit ten friends to the program would be unable to promote, then your justification would protect this action. It is irrelevant whether your squadron does this or not, and it is irrelevant what your definition of "asking too much" is, since such definitions can and will differ from person to person. What matters is that this interpretation gives commanders authority to extend the program I don't think was ever intended.

Commanders can and should offer supplemental activities to the curriculum defined by CAPR 52-16. But I can see no justification on how commanders can override the decision of the people who wrote the regulation and decide that cadets aren't worthy of promoting unless they have ES participation, or color guard participation, or staff a parade. The people who wrote CAPR 52-16 had the authority to make those decisions, and ultimately, they decided that such activities were not within the realm of acceptable requirements for progression in the program. If any commander has a problem with that, they can send their suggestion up the chain of command, just like they are supposed to. Not simply make new requirements because they think the program we have is insufficient.

I understand you're uncomfortable with the slippery-slope argument I'm making, but I making it because such arguments should not even be possible when it comes to the regulations. Again, when commanders are given authority, that authority is specific and limited, so that it is nearly impossible to make a valid interpretation that allows for abuse of power. Regs MUST be written this way, because if abuse is actually PROTECTED by the regulations, then we can't stop it. I don't believe for a second that CAPR 52-16 was written in such a way that would allow, even by a slippery-slope argument, the possibility of power abuse to exist and still be within regulation. If you assume that participation is ONLY required for the program criteria defined by CAPR 52-16, then there is no possibility of abuse through slippery-slope arguments. That makes it far more similar to the regulations generally put out by CAP, and I see no reason to interpret it any other way.

And again, I can't figure out how it can be justified that a LEADER must FORCE cadets to attend EC activities. I'm not going to rewrite everything, but the point is that if you have a hard time getting cadets to go to outside activities, then the problem is almost always going to be with the leadership and the activity, NOT with the cadets. Forcing the cadets to attend an activity that they don't want to go to is not only ignoring the problem, but probably negating the benefit of that activity in the first place.

EDITED: Typos

[SamFranklin]

Nathan's right.

Another way of looking at promotion requirements is to see them as acknowledging a cadet's right to become promotion eligible upon completing the particular tasks set forth in the reg.  The reg creating those requirements does not empower commanders to restrict that right.

You can say a promotion eligible cadet is undeserving of promotion because he isn't meeting the leadership expectations and maturity, but you can't say that his inability or refusal to perform a 20 hour Unit CC approved project makes him ineligible for promotion.

Pat's thing about adding a very minor task once in a while is within the common sense spirit of the reg, but the principle of commanders making promotions harder on their own authority is not a power they can find in the reg.

[Nathan]

Pat's thing about adding a very minor task once in a while is within the common sense spirit of the reg, but the principle of commanders making promotions harder on their own authority is not a power they can find in the reg.

I agree with this, which I probably did not make clear enough. I am not saying that requiring time outside of the weekly meetings is WRONG, and that commanders should be ashamed for thinking it's a good idea. I actually would be inclined to agree with them. Few successful cadets are trained once a week. I would have no problem with additional clauses giving commanders specific authority to add a light layer of extra requirement per the commander's discretion, so long as that clause still limited commanders in terms of activity and commitment that could be demanded.

What I am saying is that using the regulation to attempt to justify the practice only leads to the possibility of even worse things being justified and protected. Regulations cannot be interpreted in such a way that allows people that much power without any oversight, which is exactly what is being claimed by those insisting commanders can legally obligate cadets to EC activities. I don't think the regulation was written that way, and if you interpret it more conservatively, then magically, all the problems associated with possible abuse go away.

If a commander wants to get cadets outside and doing stuff, there is almost never going to be a need to force them to do it by withholding promotion. Cadets don't join CAP simply to go to weekly meetings. If you offer something outside of the weekly meetings that is well-planned and interesting, then you WILL have cadets go. If they aren't going, it's because of a marketing issue, or a boring/ineffective leader, or a poor choice in timing (ie, planning during prime vacation periods). Even if you have cadets who are just genuinely not interested in doing anything outside of the weekly meetings, that can still be traced back to a recruiting, marketing, or leadership issue.

The only possible reason you could use to justify obligating cadet attendance at EC activities is if there is a big problem with cadets who do nothing more than push paper and somehow not burn out of the program before they promote very high. Per my own experience, few cadets manage to survive even to the Armstrong by attending only weekly meetings. But if they do, they usually have other issues, such as a lack of real leadership development, poor attendance, immaturity, or stagnation, and luckily for the commander, all of these issues CAN legally be handled by withholding the cadet's promotion until the issue is fixed.

[tsrup]

And if you think that a cadet isn't mature enough or experienced enough for the next rank, you do your CAPF 50.  You mention off hand (because you're trying to give that cadet tools to succeed, rather than just criticism) that attending an upcoming SAREX or CLA might help with that.  Then it becomes "SO and SO wont promote me because I haven't been to a SAREX".

If cadet promotions were truly automatic, then there would be no leeway for promotion boards or even a disapproved button on the promotions utility.   

[lordmonar]

Nathan,

I see your point and agree with them for the most part.

We should not be changeing the agree up on promotion requirments.....that is the reg says a passing score is 70% we can't change it to 75 or 80.
But the reg says that "activities" are a part of the program.

So....it is with in the preview of the commander to require particpation in other acitivies as a basis for promotion.  If that activity is also a SAREX....assuming you have clearly defined educational goals as spelled out in 52-16...then it would be hard for anyone to argue that you are infact making it harder.

Granted...this is a vague portion of the regulation....and as such....like I said we keep the requirment of participating "actively" fairly easy to accomplish.

But to say that NO COMMANDER can require it.....because some commander MAY abuse the sprit is almost as bad.  With online testing....there would almost no need at all to attend any meetings.

We have to use all the tools in our tool bag to provide a quality program.  We expect our cadets to particpate actively....including the activities outside of normal meeting nights.  You tie our hands if you don't allow us to hold back a promotion because cadet X only shows up for Character Develoment and PT testing.

[Ned]

Does anyone think that the Cadet Oath has any impact on this discussion?

Perhaps the part where the cadet promises to "participate actively in unit activities . . ."?

[RiverAux]

Ned, I've been waiting for you to weigh in and I'm surprised that you apparently agree that a commander can pretty much require a cadet to do anything they want in the way of unit activities in order to be eligible for promotion.  If you believe the current regulation allows that, then it is clear to me that the regulation needs to be changed to explicitly prohibit squadron commanders from having that degree of discretion. 

[Nathan]

We should not be changeing the agree up on promotion requirments.....that is the reg says a passing score is 70% we can't change it to 75 or 80.
But the reg says that "activities" are a part of the program.

So....it is with in the preview of the commander to require particpation in other acitivies as a basis for promotion.  If that activity is also a SAREX....assuming you have clearly defined educational goals as spelled out in 52-16...then it would be hard for anyone to argue that you are infact making it harder.

I think that point is only valid if the regulations dictate that a commander MUST have outside activities. There is no such requirement. That is actually a huge point here. A perfectly legal cadet program can run only one meeting a week, and nothing else. Will it be a good program? Hard to say for sure. But it will be fully within the regulation.

That makes any EC activities a big issue, because it means that a commander could make ANYTHING a CAP activity as a supplement to the existing cadet activities. Is the squadron getting together to play Laser Tag? Are the senior members directly responsible for the cadets (ie, the parents drop them off)? It can be a CAP activity. Watch an air-themed movie on the squadron commander's big screen? It can be designated as a CAP activity. And, I can mention again the problems even with "regular" CAP activities. If a commander dictates that cadets must serve on the color guard for a certain time, and color guard practices every Friday and Saturday night for four hours a night, that would imply a commander could withhold cadet promotion simply because the cadet can't spend eight hours a week dedicated to color guard.

My issue is that there are no real limits to what a commander can designate as a "CAP activity", nor are there any limits on the extent to which a commander may require the participation in EC activities. To use my previous example, a commander might require participation in his recruiting drive, and therefore refuse to promote any cadet who fails to recruit 10 members, because he doesn't consider them having participated actively until this goal has been reached.

I have no problem with commander flexibility, but without specifically-defined limits to what commanders may designate a CAP activity and the commitment they can expect from the cadets, then commanders wield an absurd amount of power under your interpretation. Even if you personally don't choose to bring it that far, we both know that others will. We have both been around long enough to see even the uppermost echelons of CAP use legal wizardry to achieve things that were not really supposed to be possible.

So I guess my question is this. Is there any way to take your argument, that "activities" may be defined and obligated by the commander for promotion requirements, and for there not to be a risk of that definition being used maliciously or insanely by incompetent commanders? If not, then I think a more conservative philosophy needs to be used, while a petition to grant commanders specific, limited authority to require EC activities per discretion might be appropriate.

Does anyone think that the Cadet Oath has any impact on this discussion?

Perhaps the part where the cadet promises to "participate actively in unit activities . . ."?

Not really, to be honest. Cadets can promise to participate actively in unit activities, but the question being debated, I think, is how a commander might determine when that promise has been broken. I suppose the cadet can interpret it any way he or she chooses, but commanders are the ones who are ultimately making the decision as to whether or not the cadet is filling the requirement. There were a couple times as a cadet where I was unable to attend any unit activities outside of meetings for months on end. I still "participated actively" by fulfilling the role assigned to me, preparing for each meeting per my assignment, and giving my all every time I was in uniform. But some commanders, apparently, would consider me to have been failing in my duty to participate actively because, despite my hard work toward the weekly meetings, I didn't have a weekend open to attend a SAREX. I just don't buy the argument.

[lordmonar]

So your answer is because there is no "clear" definition....then no commander may make anything required.

The argument to extremes can be used both ways.

If we are only talking about EC activities....what about regular meetings?  There is no definition about what the "minimuns" are for just going to meetings.  In theory the cadet only has to attend two Character Development Sessions per year and pass his test (online) and pass his PT tests.....and still get promoted twice a year.  That means he ONLY has to attend four meetings (assuming CD is held on a different night than PT).

So by arguing that the reg in unclear.....I would be forced to promote a cadet I have only seen twice in the last six months or so.

I agree that no one specific EC activity should be 100% manditory.....(everyone must go to this SAREX or you won't get promoted)......but IF the squadron is going to go to the effort to put on EC acitivities.....I certainly think that it is okay for the commander to require that the cadets take part in at least one of them from time to time.

So long as the requirement is know up front.....and we make sure that even our perspective members know about this requirment....and the squadron has enough EC activities to support this sort of rule (we make sure that there are 2-3 EC acitivies each month) then what is the problem?

[Nathan]

Well, I see where your logic goes, and I don't have exact regs to back me up (about to leave work), but I know that there are certain "musts" as part of the cadet program. IE, there must be a certain number of AE sessions, there must be a certain number of CD sessions, there must be a certain number of mentoring sessions, etc.

If an activity is a REQUIRED part of implementing the cadet program, I would say we can safely ASSUME that this would fall within the realm of cadet activities in which active participation is required. Things that are not mandated parts of the cadet program, such as SAREX activities, color guard, wing conferences, CAC, and the like would fall outside of that norm. Since they are not mandated to the commander as something that MUST be included in the program, cadets would not have that same sort of obligation to attend them.

This is based on the same logic I've used before. CAPR 52-16 requires certain aspects of the program to happen, or the program is not considered to be "functional." If a cadet is not testing, this would be a problem, since the writers of CAPR 52-16 seemed to believe that testing was a necessary component to cadet development. On the same note, there are mandated AE sessions that the commander must conduct, because the writers felt that these AE sessions were a necessary part of the cadets' training. We can derive, then, that if a cadet is missing anything that is either mandated by 52-16 to the cadet OR the senior, then that would safely be considered an activity by which the commander can judge "active participation." There is no cadet activity without certain aspects of the weekly meetings.

[lordmonar]

There is no such requirment to hold X number of AE/CD/Leadership classes per month.

There is a requirment to insure that cadets have enough opportunity to test so they can advance......but no to hold any sort of class.

But using a bit of logic instead of jumping up and down about "what is in the regulation".....it is clear that CAP wants us to hold these classes.....and that we expect our cadets to participate actively in them to get promoted.

And yes.....just about anything can be determined to be an activity so long as it has at least one measureable goal involved in it as per the regulation.

so....we have done movie nights.  We have done ATC visit, we do NRA rifle shooting, we do SAREXs, we do ES training, we do recruiting drives, we do community services, we do air show support, we put on NCO Schools, we take road trips to CAWG to attend their NCOLS and COBC, we have a wing Honor Guard and a Squadron Color Guard, we have O-Rides, we do model rocketry week ends.

And we only require our cadets to attend ONE......just ONE of these things between promotions.

If we are forbidden to do this...then we MUST promote the guy who only shows up once or twice a quarter to get in his Character Development credit or take his PT test.

[Nathan]

There is no such requirment to hold X number of AE/CD/Leadership classes per month.

There is a requirment to insure that cadets have enough opportunity to test so they can advance......but no to hold any sort of class.

Not a solid "MUST" requirement, but if we want to look at what CAP expects as the "Core Curriculum", well...

Minimum Monthly Contact Hours

Leadership:  1.5 hours
Includes classroom instruction, drill and ceremonies,
team leadership problems, and similar activities.

Aerospace:  1.5 hours
Includes classroom instruction, “AEX” activities, tours,
rocketry, Satellite Tool Kit, and similar activities. 

Fitness:  1 hour
Includes fitness games, drills, orienteering, classroom
instruction, fitness testing, and similar activities.

Character: 1 hour 
Includes character forums, DDR programs, mentoring,
guest speakers, and similar activities.

CAPR 52-16  EFFECTIVE 1 FEBRUARY 2011 15

These guidelines provide a baseline for cadet training, expressing CAP’s desire for units to offer activities relating to
each of the four main program elements over the course of each month. Units may exceed these guidelines and fill
any remaining contact hours with electives (e.g. special projects, emergency services training, community service, etc.).
Units may be required to conduct safety training (see CAPR 62-1, CAP Safety Responsibilities and Procedures).

I think the paragraph at the bottom is kind of important. It explains that these are the four MAIN program elements.

If we want to get a double-check on what CAP generally considers the "Core Curriculum" of the program, we can also look in P52-15.

Most squadrons meet weekly for 2.5 hours. The cadet staff, with sen-
ior member guidance, plans the program. Units should organize their
weekly meetings around a master schedule based on a 13-week quar-
ter. This system ensures the unit fulfills the minimum training require-
ments through the “Emphasis Items” and “Core Curriculum” blocks,
while allowing ample time for other projects through the “Special
Training” block. (Again, the SEP squadron’s environment will differ; see
the SEP administrator’s guide.)
Some important things regarding meeting schedules include:

In a traditional squadron, weekly meetings should be 2.5 hours in
duration.
Squadron meetings should include hands-on activities – not just
drill.
Meetings should be planned well in advance, as shown by the
depth of detail in the sample weekly schedule at right, bottom.
Activities should help the cadets accomplish what they need to
do to earn promotions.
Meetings should be somewhat cumulative; that is what goes on
at this week’s meeting ought to dovetail with what the cadets
are doing the following week.

Emphasis mine.

They have an example schedule showing what they consider to be the "Core Curriculum" here as well. I'm not going to paste it, but they list out achievement tests, aerospace education, character development, leadership, and physical fitness.

So I think it's pretty clear, even if not written down in stone, what CAP considers to be the fundamentals of the program. Fundamentals tend to tie in directly to the program requirements already demanded of the cadets. Anything that is not tested by CAP is not considered to be a fundamental aspect.

I'm not trying to undermine the importance of outside activities. I am the first in line to say that they are vital to the making of a good cadet program. But they are not part of the core curriculum, as far as CAP is concerned, so it's hard to say that if CAP doesn't consider them to be vital enough to require or test, then commanders don't have the authority to ignore that.