New CPP Codified - Updated 52-10

[Eclipse]

Eminently doable.

Yes, many things are "eminently doable", yet, here we are.

It takes minutes to update a .pdf yet it's what 10+ years on 39-1?  Not to mention all the other places
where there are typos, conflicts, and other issues, yet those things which are "eminently doable" aren't done.

I'd really be interested in the top-down plan NHQ is going to rollout to assist in this endeavor.

The membership is shrinking, we have leadership gaps all over the place, and recruiting is an afterthought,
yet somehow units with few to zero female senior members are going to simply "get some" in 6 months?

And it isn't just recruiting female seniors, it's recruiting female seniors who are willing to supervise cadets
on overnight activities that they are presumably disconnected from otherwise.

This is an unfunded mandate with poorly consider consequences.  The result is not going to be more females,
it's going to be less overnight activities.

[Eclipse]

And I have to ask, why isn't there an allowance for adults to chaperon their own children?

Especially if that cadet is the only one requiring a gender-specification in supervision?

[Garibaldi]

All this begs the question: What activity or activities is this primarily aimed at?

Encampment will usually have at least ONE female SM there the whole week.

ES/SAREX? That's a little more iffy. We do have a good female presence at our SAREXes here, but I think GAWG is the exception rather than the rule.

Special activities, such as a NCSA? Doable, but are we going to cancel one if 12 female cadets show up and there are no female SMs? Flight encampment comes to mind...

I'm beginning to wonder if this is aimed at squadron or group level activities. It doesn't make sense if it is an activity where there may be female SMs participating, but then, until I show up, I never really know if there are female SMs at the activity.

Will we have to make a notation on the OPORD that a female SM chaperone is available or not? That would preclude a bunch of female cadets I know, especially one in particular, who are very hardcore GT.

Really, this makes a lot of sense and it doesn't make a lot of sense. We are just going to have to roll with the punches, and for those of us who have already taken this female chaperone idea into consideration, it won't make that much difference in what we are doing. I've noticed that whenever a change like this rolls around, we all grumble and moan and roll our eyes and complain about re-inventing the wheel, but in the end we adapt and continue the mission.

I do agree with Eclipse on this, in part. It is going to cut down on female cadet participation quite a bit. Six months is a good amount of time to implement this, but in the end, if we can't make it work, what then? Are we going to have to actively recruit new female SMs who don't mind going in the woods or supervising cadets, sleeping in FBOs on hard floors? Are we going to have to convince the female membership we already have to suck it up and do it for the greater good? Recruit moms when their daughter wants to join?

This is causing more questions than answers, but the answers are there if we look hard enough. The cadet program is unlike any youth program I've ever encountered. CAP is a completely different animal as well. I wonder if the same rules apply to JROTC.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Eclipse-

All your questions are really well thought out. The simple answer is that management are so focused on other issues that their "projects" almost never reflect the reality of those "on the ground."

My occupation, teacher in the New York City allowed me to see this.

And maybe I will be criticized by reflecting on the following as just being one example and not reflecting the larger force, but I will also post what I saw between two New York City policemen, then one of them and a sergeant.

I was assisting as a CAP member at the New York City Tunnel to Towers Marathon some years ago. The runners registered at Ikea then had to walk to the starting line several blocks away. Crossing a street was controlled by two policemen. They coordinated with each other very nicely. Cars were halted so runners could cross. Then runners were stopped so cars could move. All of a sudden one of the policemen left maybe on lunch. An NYPD sergeant replaced him. The policeman that was left would allow runners to walk then the sergeant let the cars go. Right in the path of the runners crossing. And viceversa...

[a2capt]

How can we possibly not have a coed activity? We can't say "male cadets only". The ink wouldn't even be dry before the howling would start. So you've pretty much got to plan on having one of each at every event so that you don't have to cancel, because you sure as heck can't tell the few female cadets, "sorry", you can't come.

[Майор Хаткевич]

The whole point is BS, with capitals throughout. Before "past/family" relations were OK. Then at the last minute someone decided dads can be predatos too! And sure, it's true, but chances are they will have a better opportunity to abuse THEIR kid on THEIR time.

So what in the world? CPP 24/7? Should the SM dad move out? Can't be alone with his kids at home, they are cadets after all. He can't drive them to a meeting, they sure are in a uniform, and thus CAP will be mentioned when he does something horrible. Dad > CAP membership? Don't think so, our legal eagle said when in doubt think cadet protection first! And that's the point isn't it? Screw the fact that a child was violated, at least CAPs name isn't mentioned!

If I have 20 cadets going on a field trip, 2 are my daughters, and we can't go because no SMs of the female persuation volunteered? You think those 18 cadets wont be hating on the girls? Are you going to tell me I can't supervise my own daughters with another SM male? Really?

I know of at least one example locally. SM dad, two daughters in the program. So are we going to shut out all activities for the cadets in his unit? Have him tell his girls NOT to go so the boys can go? This is about as bad as the "girls need to cover up at school, because boys will be distracted".

Melodramatic? Perhaps. But stupid rules, with ZERO thought behind them are just that. Dumb [mess].

[Майор Хаткевич]

Ned, what are the male to female statistics in CAP? How many are CP rated? Anyone look at that at all?

[SunDog]

Maybe just do the right thing, take an occasional chance, and accept consequences, if any. If the kid(s) are as safe as it's practical to make 'em,  U done good.  If the CoC wants to heave you under the bus cause you came up short one female SM on a last minute cancellation, head out anyway, and hope for forgiveness; or concede you might have just done your last CP activity. . .if that's not comfy, toe the line and call off the trip, give mom and dad NHQ's phone number. 

Permuations could be entertaining - married couple, one a cadet, one a SM? Now if the SM is female, and one other cadet on the overnight is female. . .no, no, if the male cadet is the only male, can his wife chaperone. . .brain hurt. . .

[SarDragon]

Maybe just do the right thing, take an occasional chance, and accept consequences, if any. If the kid(s) are as safe as it's practical to make 'em,  U done good.  If the CoC wants to heave you under the bus cause you came up short one female SM on a last minute cancellation, head out anyway, and hope for forgiveness; or concede you might have just done your last CP activity. . .if that's not comfy, toe the line and call off the trip, give mom and dad NHQ's phone number. 

Permuations could be entertaining - married couple, one a cadet, one a SM? Now if the SM is female, and one other cadet on the overnight is female. . .no, no, if the male cadet is the only male, can his wife chaperone. . .brain hurt. . .

That's already against the rules, independent of CPPT.

[SunDog]

Which one do we throw out?

[Ned]

The whole point is BS, with capitals throughout. Before "past/family" relations were OK. Then at the last minute someone decided dads can be predatos too! And sure, it's true, but chances are they will have a better opportunity to abuse THEIR kid on THEIR time.

So what in the world? CPP 24/7? Should the SM dad move out? Can't be alone with his kids at home, they are cadets after all. He can't drive them to a meeting, they sure are in a uniform, and thus CAP will be mentioned when he does something horrible. Dad > CAP membership? Don't think so, our legal eagle said when in doubt think cadet protection first! And that's the point isn't it? Screw the fact that a child was violated, at least CAPs name isn't mentioned!

Capt Hatkevich,

My sense is that you were a little upset when you wrote this.  A CAP officer, you have a duty to embrace and follow our Core Values, which includes the CAP Core Value of Respect (to "treat each other with fairness and dignity, and work together as a team.")  It does not seem respectful to announce to the world that a regulation developed, staffed, and implemented by our volunteer leaders is "BS with capitals throughout."  Nor does publicly carping about the regulation on the internet consistent with "working together as a team."

You are a Leadership Officer, sir.  Would it be OK for cadets to go online and announce that your decisions and policies are "BS with capital letters throughout"?  (Hint: the answer would be "no.")

I think our Core Values speak for themselves, but let me add a bit of wisdom from our Air Force colleagues.  In their "Little Blue Book" that explains their Core Values, there is a bullet under "Service Before Self" that you might find helpful:

Faith in the system. To lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command what should or should not be done. In other words, to lose faith in the system is to place self before service. Leaders can be very influential in this regard: if a leader resists the temptation to doubt 'the system', then subordinates might follow suit.

This particular regulation was drafted by the corporate and volunteer CP staff officers and then put out not once, but twice for member comment (including vibrant discussions right here on CT.)  After each comment period the regulation was redrafted in response to the public comments, as well as input from CAP senior leadership.  Literally hundreds of hours went into the research, preparation, drafting, staffing, redrafting, and publication.  Like any regulation that touches on controversial areas, a number of compromises and revisions were made.  By definition, essentially every time there is a compromise, nobody is going to be totally happy with the outcome.  But we can and will make this work.  If for no other reason that Gen Carr has signed it, and it is a regulation that we are bound by our oaths of membership to follow.

But even more important than this particular reminder about loyalty, Core Values, and the request that you work with your leadership to support these changes, is the fact that I have a hard time believing that you have even read the regulation you are ranting about.

There is nothing in the regulation that suggests that it is improper for seniors and cadets to contact each other outside of CAP activities.  Really - take a look at paragraph 2.7, Interactions Outside CAP Activities.  It talks a little bit about social media and electronic communications, but absolutely nothing that even suggests anything as silly as what you were ranting about above.

If I have 20 cadets going on a field trip, 2 are my daughters, and we can't go because no SMs of the female persuation volunteered? You think those 18 cadets wont be hating on the girls? Are you going to tell me I can't supervise my own daughters with another SM male? Really?

Sigh.  You really need to step away from the keyboard and read the regulation.  There is no gender requirements for the senior supervision on a "field trip."  Really.  Any two seniors in "approved" status will do.  The coed requirements only apply to overnight activities, and even that is not mandatory for another six months.  (Although always a good idea.)

I know of at least one example locally. SM dad, two daughters in the program. So are we going to shut out all activities for the cadets in his unit? Have him tell his girls NOT to go so the boys can go? This is about as bad as the "girls need to cover up at school, because boys will be distracted".

Melodramatic? Perhaps. But stupid rules, with ZERO thought behind them are just that. Dumb [mess].

Oddly enough, not so long ago I was a SM dad with a daughter in the program.  No one is suggesting that any cadets be denied an activity merely because of their gender.  Indeed, we are saying just the opposite:  it is the responsibility of the unit leadership (which includes you, for your squadron) to arrange coed supervision for overnight activities, starting no later than about six months from now.

The only source of melodrama in this situation appears to come from members who have not read the actual regulation, or who chose to act unprofessionally instead of supporting the policy.

All of us have a duty to accept and follow the regulations, even the ones we disagree with.

Thank you for your service with our cadets.  You are literally touching the future.

Ned Lee
CP Enthusiast

[Майор Хаткевич]

Sundog: the cadet.

Ned: will read/respond tomorrow.

[Eclipse]

This particular regulation was drafted by the corporate and volunteer CP staff officers and then put out not once, but twice for member comment (including vibrant discussions right here on CT.)  After each comment period the regulation was redrafted in response to the public comments, as well as input from CAP senior leadership.  Literally hundreds of hours went into the research, preparation, drafting, staffing, redrafting, and publication.  Like any regulation that touches on controversial areas, a number of compromises and revisions were made.  By definition, essentially every time there is a compromise, nobody is going to be totally happy with the outcome.  But we can and will make this work.  If for no other reason that Gen Carr has signed it, and it is a regulation that we are bound by our oaths of membership to follow.

Dissent and frustration does not equal disobedience, however unfunded / impractical mandates encourage people
(as indicated above) to break the rules, or simply avoid the situation entirely, defeating the intended purpose
or causing unintended consequences - namely, many units will simply stop planning overnight activities, to the detriment of everyone and the potential blame of whichever gender is the minority in a given unit, and
based on scratch-pad demographics, that will generally be the female cadets.

Oddly enough, not so long ago I was a SM dad with a daughter in the program.  No one is suggesting that any cadets be denied an activity merely because of their gender. 

Of course not, it just sets up an untenable situation for many units who are barely able to
sustain operations as it is.

Indeed, we are saying just the opposite:  it is the responsibility of the unit leadership (which includes you, for your squadron) to arrange coed supervision for overnight activities, starting no later than about six months from now.

How?

Exactly. 

"Recruit new female members?"
Should we force every cadet who joins to bring an adult of the same gender as a member?

Trying to turn the legitimate and justified frustration at this situation into a treatise on "salute and execute" makes
a very nice CDI lesson and does not, in any way, fix the situation.   It simply deflects the conversation from the real issue.

[SunDog]

Do you adhere to the core value of respect by chastising the guy in the very public forum you criticize him for using? Kinda glass housing, aren't you. Or did you have a broader audience in mind?

Not sure you're totally off base or out of line, I admit; but the guy didn't advocate mutiny in a CAP setting. He vented (vice ranted).  If you step back a bit, it does walk, talk, and quack like a CYA reg. And it is muddy, as written. Or, say it lacks precision in wording?

The guy may be angry, and stomped too hard, but CAP's "system" brings this down on itself often enough. 

[SarDragon]

Neither - the cadet becomes a senior member.

2-2. Requirements for Initial Membership. All applicants for cadet membership must meet the following prerequisites:
c. Single or married and under age 18.

2-6. Marriage. Married cadets who reach age 18 as well as cadets who marry after age 18, will furnish NHQ/PMM written notification along with a completed CAPF 12 and FD Form 258 fingerprint card at which time they will be transferred automatically to senior membership status.

Who they are married to has no relevance.

[Eclipse]

Are we talking married before joining or after?

A cadet cannot be married to a senior member.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Capt Hatkevich,

My sense is that you were a little upset when you wrote this.

Upset? Not quite. But your deflections to other posts got me a bit riled up.

  A CAP officer, you have a duty to embrace and follow our Core Values, which includes the CAP Core Value of Respect (to "treat each other with fairness and dignity, and work together as a team.")  It does not seem respectful to announce to the world that a regulation developed, staffed, and implemented by our volunteer leaders is "BS with capitals throughout."  Nor does publicly carping about the regulation on the internet consistent with "working together as a team."

Regulation? No Sir. I like it, most of it. This particular "our of the blue" add on? You betcha! We can talk Core Values all night, but here's one. Where's the Respect for the Integrity of our members? I'm not talking about "why have a CPP at all then?", I'm talking about BLOOD relatives and similar who got the shaft in the final draft. But at least we can all be grateful that CAPTalk is an unofficial outlet, where we exchange thoughts, ideas, debate, argue, and hell, sometimes even bring about changes in attitudes and policies.

You are a Leadership Officer, sir.  Would it be OK for cadets to go online and announce that your decisions and policies are "BS with capital letters throughout"?  (Hint: the answer would be "no.")

Currently unassigned actually, but point taken, and disagreed with. They can SAY what they want. Whether there will be consequences, that's a whole other matter.

I think our Core Values speak for themselves, but let me add a bit of wisdom from our Air Force colleagues.  In their "Little Blue Book" that explains their Core Values, there is a bullet under "Service Before Self" that you might find helpful:

Faith in the system. To lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command what should or should not be done. In other words, to lose faith in the system is to place self before service. Leaders can be very influential in this regard: if a leader resists the temptation to doubt 'the system', then subordinates might follow suit.

Well, I don't think I know better. I disagree, and I admit that I am not the smartest, but we're not the military either, and I think it's ok to admit that sometimes "those above us" make mistakes. They are that much more damaging however, when it involves something that changes less than once per generation. As to influencing subordinates? In November we'll schedule an activity for December. By late November, we'll have a complete sign up, with three female cadets. If we have not yet, we will attempt to secure a SM female to join us. A few days out, we will either cancel due to a SM issue, or carry on with a SM female there. That's all the cadets will know, but of course, SOME of them read CAPTalk, and SOME of them do read the regs, and will know the "secret" of why something was cancelled. I bet in quite a few of such instances, the blame will not be on NHQ, the SMs, or CPP, but squarely on the female cadets. That's teens for you.

This particular regulation was drafted by the corporate and volunteer CP staff officers and then put out not once, but twice for member comment (including vibrant discussions right here on CT.)  After each comment period the regulation was redrafted in response to the public comments, as well as input from CAP senior leadership.  Literally hundreds of hours went into the research, preparation, drafting, staffing, redrafting, and publication.  Like any regulation that touches on controversial areas, a number of compromises and revisions were made.  By definition, essentially every time there is a compromise, nobody is going to be totally happy with the outcome.  But we can and will make this work.  If for no other reason that Gen Carr has signed it, and it is a regulation that we are bound by our oaths of membership to follow.

Not ONCE did I say that I will NOT, or plan not to follow the regulation. You've got one part right "salute and execute". So far, I'm still enjoying working with cadets, so a CAPF2B doesn't seem like a goal at this time.

But even more important than this particular reminder about loyalty, Core Values, and the request that you work with your leadership to support these changes, is the fact that I have a hard time believing that you have even read the regulation you are ranting about.

Well that's nice. Because YOU choose to address this from a perspective that I'm an ignorant fool who thinks this applies to ALL CAP Cadet functions, then it must be true. I commented (and yes, read) on both of the revision topics here, as well as on the national website comments. I think you and I even had a discussion on another policy in the very first topic. Which core value is that? Respect or Integrity?

There is nothing in the regulation that suggests that it is improper for seniors and cadets to contact each other outside of CAP activities.  Really - take a look at paragraph 2.7, Interactions Outside CAP Activities.  It talks a little bit about social media and electronic communications, but absolutely nothing that even suggests anything as silly as what you were ranting about above.

Ranting? May look that way. If the examples seemed absurd, that's because they were meant to be. If you missed that, next time I'll hyperbole harder.

Sigh.  You really need to step away from the keyboard and read the regulation.  There is no gender requirements for the senior supervision on a "field trip."  Really.  Any two seniors in "approved" status will do.  The coed requirements only apply to overnight activities, and even that is not mandatory for another six months.  (Although always a good idea.)

Sigh. I really wish you'd stop lawyering, and respond to points as they are written, in the context presented. Maybe it's my grasp of English (am I a non-native speaker after all), but I wasn't aware that FIELD trips were synonymous with DAY trips. From here on out, I shall refer to them as multi-day field trips. For clarity, of course.

Oddly enough, not so long ago I was a SM dad with a daughter in the program.  No one is suggesting that any cadets be denied an activity merely because of their gender.

Oh yes they are. It's not meant that way (I hope), but the reality vs. "I have a great idea" don't line up on this one.

Indeed, we are saying just the opposite:  it is the responsibility of the unit leadership (which includes you, for your squadron) to arrange coed supervision for overnight activities, starting no later than about six months from now.

I'm all good with yet another mandate from above. But since you're our stats guy with NHQ access, I'm sure you can tell us how many Female SMs vs Male SMs there are in CAP. Perhaps NHQ would be nice enough to give us a plan to recruit more? Because without that, this is a sham.

The only source of melodrama in this situation appears to come from members who have not read the actual regulation, or who chose to act unprofessionally instead of supporting the policy.

I've read the reg. I support it. I disagree with a subpoint. Shoot me. I'm sorry I can clearly see the issue down the road that "those who should know better/more/smarter" didn't.

All of us have a duty to accept and follow the regulations, even the ones we disagree with.

Sure do. Accept? Check. Follow? Check. Support. Hell no.

Thank you for your service with our cadets.  You are literally touching the future.

You know, this bugs me every time. I have a very strong suspicion, based on reading dozens of posts ending in similar way from you, that this is akin to a "Well, G-d Bless You" from a religious person when you tell them you don't believe. Typically their voice tells you they mean quite the opposite.

Ned Lee
CP Enthusiast

Feel free to try it out again on the ground floor. I think you'll find it's a bit different when you're the CDC with MAYBE one more person helping you run a program with about 10-12 cadets.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Neither - the cadet becomes a senior member.

2-2. Requirements for Initial Membership. All applicants for cadet membership must meet the following prerequisites:
c. Single or married and under age 18.

2-6. Marriage. Married cadets who reach age 18 as well as cadets who marry after age 18, will furnish NHQ/PMM written notification along with a completed CAPF 12 and FD Form 258 fingerprint card at which time they will be transferred automatically to senior membership status.

Who they are married to has no relevance.

True, but point stands, the "status change" falls on the cadet. "Up or out", quite literally.

[Panache]

This is an unfunded mandate with poorly consider consequences.  The result is not going to be more females, it's going to be less overnight activities.

You know, a part of me is wondering if that's actually the intent of this brouhaha...

A CAP officer, you have a duty to embrace and follow our Core Values, which includes the CAP Core Value of Respect (to "treat each other with fairness and dignity, and work together as a team.") 

Playing the Core Values card?  Poor form, that.

[Ned]

Upset? Not quite. But your deflections to other posts got me a bit riled up.

OK, you were not upset.  Just "riled up." 

I'm talking about BLOOD relatives and similar who got the shaft in the final draft.

Help me to understand what you mean here.  As near as I can tell, there was no change in how CAP family members deal with each other, with the single exception of overnight activities.  We went from mandatory two-deep to mandatory two-deep coed (which is waived for six months to allow units to prepare.)  Maybe it is that hyperbole you are so fond of, but it is hard for me to imagine how that single change amounts to giving "BLOOD relatives the shaft."

What am I missing?

Well, I don't think I know better. I disagree, [ . . .]

I kinda figured out that you disagree.  And as far as that goes, there is no problem with disagreement and critique.  Really, no one has an issue with something like "The regulation says X, but I think that is a mistake.  It should really say Y, because of Reason 1, Reason 2, and Reason 3."

But that's a far cry from posting while "riled up" and calling the regulation (or any part of it) "BS, with capitals throughout," or a "sham," or talking about some members "getting the shaft." Or posting (to use your description) "absurd" hypotheticals and hyperbole.

I'm sure you can tell us how many Female SMs vs Male SMs there are in CAP.

Last time I looked, it was something like 80 / 20 male for both seniors and cadets.

Accept? Check. Follow? Check. Support. Hell no.

Here's another point where we apparently differ.  I believe that every CAP officer has a duty to publicly support the regulations and policies of the corporation.  That doesn't mean that you can't privately express your disagreement to your colleague or superiors, or even publicly suggest improvements to the regulation.  And that's not just a military thing, BTW, it goes for pretty much any organization in which you hold a responsible position.  I've worked for several government agencies and held some nice jobs.  But I never enjoyed the privileged of publicly disparaging the laws, rules, or policies of the agencies. 

CT is certainly unofficial, but it is very public.  There are a lot of non-members reading this.  I can't believe that you would stand in front of the unit formation and say "parts of the regulation are BS and a sham because blood relatives got shafted." And if you can't say it publicly in one context, then you probably shouldn't be phrasing it that way here, either.

Again, I'm not suggesting that all of us have to agree with each and every part of every regulation.  I know I sure don't.  But I offer my more colorful and vehement disagreements and criticisms (including any hyperbole and absurd hypotheticals) directly to my bosses, where it potentially could do some good, and not in public where it can do harm.

Feel free to try it out again on the ground floor. I think you'll find it's a bit different when you're the CDC with MAYBE one more person helping you run a program with about 10-12 cadets. [/font]

There's no reason you should know, of course, but my first 30 years of membership were at the squadron level, including multiple tours as a CDC, Leadership Officer, Testing Officer, Logistics, etc., etc.  Some units were larger than others, but none was so large that we didn't need more seniors to help administer the program.  I am comfortable I have some sense of what it is like in the trenches on Tuesday night.


And as an aside to Bob:

How?

Exactly. 

"Recruit new female members?"

That would probably be best, of course.  But other perfectly sound alternatives exist including coordinating with other units in the group / area to "borrow" an appropriately-gendered senior for a particular activity.

When you were a group commander, I'll bet you had your CP crew try to coordinate activities between units to try to maximize resources.  Nothing really new here.

Most units have overnight activities about once a quarter. 

Some of you make it sound like recruiting female senior members is some sort of impossible task.  No recruiting is easy, but there are already thousands of competent female seniors aboard.  If you think there has to be some sort of specialized recruiting method for attracting women to the program, you might start by asking our current terrific females about what attracted and retained them.  I'll bet they'd be willing to share.