New CPP Codified - Updated 52-10

[Storm Chaser]

This comparison had nothing to do with CPPT, but with the fact that regulations can't always be applied blindly across the board, as every situation is different. That good judgement, especially on the command side, should be exercised.

So in this case you use an example where you willfully violated a very clear regulation, one
intended to discourage nepotism and insure good order, because you "knew better", and want to
use that as an argument in favor of command discretion in a matter related to cadet safety?

This is literally the reason we >have< blanket regulations, because people who "know better"
can't simply follow simple rules.

Wow! You are something else. My exemplary military record speaks for itself. The intend of the regulation is not to interfere with personal lives or relationships established way before the members joined the military. But what would you know. You're not in the military. You're not a lawyer. Oh, that's right; you're Eclipse. And as usual, you're here to pass judgment on others.

[Eclipse]

The fact that you didn't get "caught", or "no one cared" doesn't change what you did, or that
it could be used against yo if someone decided they didn't' like you "jib".

Its also irrelevant to this discussion.

If the military has a policy of accepting pre-existing conditions, so be it.  CAP doesn't, and
in this case it's a safety issue, so it's a reasonable stance.

[Storm Chaser]

Did not read it correctly...?

Again, this was a result of you adding things to regulations! If you want to post items that way then you haver to accept there are people that will read them incorrectly. And the cycle goes on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on...

And yet, you're the one who didn't have attention to detail when you read my post. Furthermore, you questioned the fact that I used an example from my personal experience in the Air Force, but did not address my comment about us being the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary.

The fact that you didn't get "caught", or "no one cared" doesn't change what you did, or that
it could be used against yo if someone decided they didn't' like you "jib".

Its also irrelevant to this discussion.

So are your comments.

Well, I know where this is going. If we continue arguing over this, the moderators will close this thread. I think we've derailed it enough. This will be my last post to prevent that from happening.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Did not read it correctly...?

Again, this was a result of you adding things to regulations! If you want to post items that way then you haver to accept there are people that will read them incorrectly. And the cycle goes on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on...

Sleep. Eat. Rave. Repeat.?

[Grumpy]

This may already have been discussed in this thread, in which case I apologize in advance.

This point came up in discussion tonight.

Please review the new version of 52-10, 2-3 (g) - Transportation.  The words read:

"Transportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one cadet). Note that ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-owned vehicles is not considered part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member's risk (see CAPR 900-5, Civil Air Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10)."

The discussion tonight hinged on the piece about private cars.  My opinion was that the reg forbids us to transport cadets in parties of less than 3 people unless they are family members, irrespective of who owns the vehicle (unit van or private).  The note about insurance simply means that transport to and from CAP activities via own own vehicles has to be covered by our insurance.  My reading is that this effectively prevents us from using the van or own cars to bring cadets to a meeting or to take them home afterwards UNLESS the last cadet in the vehicle is a family member OR we always use two Adult Leaders for the transport.

My colleague maintains that he can transport non-family cadets to and from meetings in his own vehicle, and that the 'rule of three' does not apply.

Opinions?

Your friend is correct

[MacGruff]

This may already have been discussed in this thread, in which case I apologize in advance.

This point came up in discussion tonight.

Please review the new version of 52-10, 2-3 (g) - Transportation.  The words read:

"Transportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one cadet). Note that ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-owned vehicles is not considered part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member's risk (see CAPR 900-5, Civil Air Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10)."

The discussion tonight hinged on the piece about private cars.  My opinion was that the reg forbids us to transport cadets in parties of less than 3 people unless they are family members, irrespective of who owns the vehicle (unit van or private).  The note about insurance simply means that transport to and from CAP activities via own own vehicles has to be covered by our insurance.  My reading is that this effectively prevents us from using the van or own cars to bring cadets to a meeting or to take them home afterwards UNLESS the last cadet in the vehicle is a family member OR we always use two Adult Leaders for the transport.

My colleague maintains that he can transport non-family cadets to and from meetings in his own vehicle, and that the 'rule of three' does not apply.

Opinions?

Your friend is correct

I'd be quite curious to hear from authoritative sources how this is to be interpreted because of my own situation. I am a Senior Member who does not have another family member as a cadet in the squadron. However, I do provide transportation to a cadet on a regular basis because we live in the same neighborhood and his widowed mother is working during the squadron meeting times and cannot transport her son back and forth. The two families (mine and the cadet's) are very close - and been close for years - and we socialize together several times weekly.

As life would have it, this cadet has recruited some friends to CAP of whom at least one is as active as he is. So, for the purposes of the new CPPT, most of the time I meet the "rule of three" as I have the two cadets in the car with me. However, it does happen at least once a month that one or another of the cadets cannot make it, in which case it is just me and one of the cadets. I suppose that a very strict reading of the regulation means that on those occasions I should not drive the cadet to the meeting and he would have to miss it.

It would be inconceivable to me not to be able to drive him to squadron meetings and having him miss out, but that is maybe what I need to do. Seems silly, but that is why I would want an authoritative interpretation of the rule.

[Grumpy]

Mac, here is the direct quote from CAPR 900-5.  Let's see if we can walk through it.  "Member Owned Vehicles. The general rule is that travel to and from CAP meetings, conferences, encampments and other CAP activities in CAP member owned/furnished vehicles is not considered a part of CAP official travel and, therefore, is performed at the risk of the member—not CAP. CAP assumes absolutely no liability for such travel, which is known as the "home-to-work rule." CAP unit commanders may, on a case-by-case basis, specifically authorize the use of a member's vehicle, which will make that use the responsibility of CAP and be covered by CAP's vehicle liability policy, but that prerogative should be exercised only in unusual situations"

1.  Member Vehicle (Not CAP)
2.  Travel to and from CAP activities (Weekly Meeting) is not covered by CAP insurance so you are on your own insurance.
3.  You have not signed-in or signed-out of the activity so you are on your own time.
4.  You say you are friends with these members that live in your neighbor hood so you must go to things such as movies, sporting events, etc., with them.  Do you worry about CPPT at those times?  No, because you're out doing your own thing.  This status continues until you sign-in at an activity.  Then you're on CAP business you can now worry all you want about CPPT.  When the activity is over you sign-out.  You're back on your own time and accepting the responsibility again.

[LSThiker]

I'd be quite curious to hear from authoritative sources how this is to be interpreted because of my own situation. I am a Senior Member who does not have another family member as a cadet in the squadron. However, I do provide transportation to a cadet on a regular basis because we live in the same neighborhood and his widowed mother is working during the squadron meeting times and cannot transport her son back and forth. The two families (mine and the cadet's) are very close - and been close for years - and we socialize together several times weekly.

Okay, I think this was accounted for in a previous draft copy.  In a previous draft there was a phrase that allowed previous relationships:

In the case of relationships that existed prior to the cadet or adult member joining CAP (e.g.: next-door neighbor or family friend), the cadet's parent may exempt the adult member from this requirement. No special paperwork is needed to document any of these situations; oral acknowledgements from the parent(s) are sufficient.

Unfortunately, this was removed. 

The previous draft is located at:
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/CAPR_5210_Round_2_coordination_1865CE9A135F4.pdf

[Garibaldi]

I had a similar situation once. Two cadets lived just south of me, and it was a 35 mile trip for me one way to our weekly meeting. I offered to drive them and notified the unit CC, who said "Get permission from their parents in writing and give it to me."

No problem. Parents knew, CC knew, end of story.

Now, today, not so sure if I would make the same offer.

[Eclipse]

BITD I gave cadets rides all the time - especially to larger activities further away, I've also had them stay over at my home - USAFAUX2004 being one of them (2-up cadets, and with the wife and kids home as well).

That was then, this is now, and it was probably not the best idea then.  Expediency and convenience won over sense, though it was never specifically prohibited as such like it is now.

I would never do that today, nor would I try to find a loophole in an unrelated regulation to try and justify an
action or behavior NHQ clearly prohibits.

900-5 has absolutely no relevance to a CPPT discussion.  It's only quoted because someone probably thought that indicating 3-up was required
might be tacitly approving to/from in a POV as CAP's responsibility.  Lawyers.

CAP makes it clear that to/from is not their responsibility, meaning "we won't pick you up", not "you can do whatever you want in your vehicle".
It also reiterates the liability perspective.

CAP can absolutely limit and define member behavior outside normal activities, and 52-10 contains any number of provisions
which limit or define senior / cadet interactions.  Members are free to complain, gnash teeth, and generally ignore the regs at the
peril of their grade, position, and ultimately their membership.

"No one ever cared before" is not justification for continuing a prohibited behavior, nor will it excuse you if someone
>does< make an issue of it.

[Майор Хаткевич]

BITD I gave cadets rides all the time - especially to larger activities further away, I've also had them stay over at my home - USAFAUX2004 being one of them (2-up cadets, and with the wife and kids home as well).

That was then, this is now, and it was probably not the best idea then.  Expediency and convenience won over sense, though it was never specifically prohibited as such like it is now.

I would never do that today, nor would I try to find a loophole in an unrelated regulation to try and justify an
action or behavior NHQ clearly prohibits.

++++ 1000.


My friend (who got me into CAP) and I had spent Thurs-Fri night at Eclipse's house, in the basement. We were both exec staff, 16/almost16, and not a DL between the two of us. It just made sense. Eclipse provided us couch, tv, Band of Brothers, and a meal or two if I remember. He got some shined boots out of it, his kids drew some pictures of the "Army Mikes", and that was that. Mrs. Eclipse was very nice as well.


But today? Today we better call the PD on Eclipse, because that's shaaaaady.
I also went to a wing conference by going with two SMs, sleeping on the floor of their room in a sleeping bag, and actually managed to have fun, although I neither show up on the PA for it, nor does it count for my PD credit now. It's an opportunity I would NOT have had a chance for with these new rules. At least not a string budget of a sixteen year old who needs all the money he has for gas money.


Throw in the fact that my parents were in a process to divorce, I wasn't even sure if I could continue in CAP, and looking back, seems I looked for stability wherever I could, which at that stage meant as many CAP activities as possible, whichever way possible.

[Ned]

You say you are friends with these members that live in your neighbor hood so you must go to things such as movies, sporting events, etc., with them.  Do you worry about CPPT at those times?  No, because you're out doing your own thing.  This status continues until you sign-in at an activity.  Then you're on CAP business you can now worry all you want about CPPT.  When the activity is over you sign-out.  You're back on your own time and accepting the responsibility again.

Just a brief response:

CPP applies 24/7, 7 days a week.  This is not a change.  For example, seniors have been prohibited from having a dating relationship with a cadet for many years.  Even dating relationships that take place "off duty."  (Come to think of it, especially dating relationships that take place off duty.)

We did have some language that applied to pre-existing relationships, but that was removed from the final draft.  It says what it says.  When in doubt, my suggestion is to interpret it in a way that maximises cadet protection.

[Майор Хаткевич]

So Squadron Commander dad can't supervise his daughters at an overnight. Got it. Can he drive them to a meeting? Or will mom have to do it?

[Ned]

So Squadron Commander dad can't supervise his daughters at an overnight.

Come on now, at this point your are just arguing for the sake of arguing.  And this one is just silly.

Of course squadron commander Dad can supervise his (presumeably cadet) daughters on the overnight activity.  Just like he has always been able to do. 

As we all know, a second senior is required for any overnight, just like always.  The only change now is that at least one of the seniors on the overnight will be female.  Restated, Dad has the same ability to supervise his daughters on an overnight activity that he had before the change.  But I suspect you knew that.

Don't make more out of it than it is.  As others have pointed out, many units (and as I understand it, even an entire region) has had this rule in effect for years.  It only just became a national standard this week.

[Garibaldi]

So Squadron Commander dad can't supervise his daughters at an overnight. Got it. Can he drive them to a meeting? Or will mom have to do it?

Not sure if any will agree, but Mom/Dad rules trump CAP rules IMO. I mean, look at it like you said. Squadron Commander has daughters in the program. There is no female SM available for an overnighter. According to CAP, he cannot supervise or act as chaperone if they are the only 2 females going to said activity. Are we really going to discipline the dad for saying "This is a great opportunity. They will be with me the whole time (EW! GROSS, DAD! NOOOO!). They are my daughters and my responsibility."? Can he drive them to a meeting? Of course he can! They're his kids first, CAP cadets second.

We could debate the interpretations all day long and I would be wrong, Eclipse would be wrong, Ned would be wrong, and we'd all be right, all at the same time. It's crazy to think that CAP rules like this would override common sense and parental responsibilities and rights. Use your brain, like Ned said. If in doubt about someone else's kid, err on the side of caution and follow the rules.

He who must attend this activity must follow these Rules of 3, or the other side of a 2B ye see...

Cover your butt. Don't allow yourself to get caught in that position.

[Майор Хаткевич]

That's the thing. If his daughters are the only two...he can't cound as their supervision.

[Garibaldi]

That's the thing. If his daughters are the only two...he can't cound as their supervision.

See? We could go around and around on this til the sun exploded.

[Grumpy]

"CPP applies 24/7, 7 days a week.  This is not a change.  For example, seniors have been prohibited from having a dating relationship with a cadet for many years.  Even dating relationships that take place "off duty."  (Come to think of it, especially dating relationships that take place off duty.)"

OK then, there goes that idea.  I tell my neighbors not to join CAP because I'll have to cut off a 12 year relationship.  What happens if after I secure the building after a meeting I walk outside and find my neighbors kid sitting on the curb and there's only to two of us there?  Which has happened to me in the past.

I used to be in 4H and we used a board to break up fits between the swine.  Guess I'll take the old pig board to meetings and keep it between me and the cadets.   

[Eclipse]

Ned, you cannot simply write this off as "little has changed".  The fact that some units may have had this as policy doesn't
change the reality.

Last month, Commander Dad with a daughter in the program could bring another male senior camping and supervise his
Cadet Daughter with no issues.

Now he can't, and saying "little has changed" won't grow a female senior member interested in camping just because
NHQ has decided this is a good idea.

At a minimum there should be allowances in the regulation for situations such as this where the only "other gender"
cadet is a child of the chaperon.

[Ned]

Ned, you cannot simply write this off as "little has changed".  The fact that some units may have had this as policy doesn't
change the reality.

(Obviously for the units that had the rule before, it changes absolutely nothing.)

But for the rest of our units, two seniors were required to supervise an overnight activity before, and two seniors are required to supervise an overnight activity after the update.  Now if the activity is coed, the required two seniors have to be coed as well.

Last month, Commander Dad with a daughter in the program could bring another male senior camping and supervise his
Cadet Daughter with no issues.

True enough.  If you go back into our history, the same could be said when we first insisted on two-deep leadership:

"Last month, Commander Dad with a daughter in the program could supervise his cadet daughter with no issues.  Now we have to double the resources necessary for an overnight activity.  Writing a regulation won't grow an additional senior member just because NHQ has decided this is a good idea."

Standards for cadet protection change and mature over time.  I don't (yet) think of myself as old, but commonly did things as a cadet (and young senior) that would be absolutely unacceptable today, but were common place at the time.

This is additional protection for our cadets.  Units have nearly six months to meet the challenge of overnight coed supervision.

Eminently doable.