Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 19, 2018, 09:37:33 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Man charged with sexually assaulting girl - Both in CAP
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [All] Print
Author Topic: Man charged with sexually assaulting girl - Both in CAP  (Read 4294 times)
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,168

« on: May 22, 2018, 02:05:30 PM »

21 and 15 ... and they had been "dating"?

Quote
ELIZABETHVILLE — A Williamstown man is free on bail, charged by state police at Lykens with sexually assaulting a 15-year-old Schuylkill Haven girl while the two served in the Civil Air Patrol.

http://republicanherald.com/news/williamstown-man-charged-with-sexually-assaulting-girl-15-1.2338713
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,249

« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2018, 02:22:23 PM »

And this is why wings are required to have a Crisis Public Affairs plan.
Logged
LATORRECA
Seasoned Member

Posts: 219

« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2018, 03:33:13 PM »

    Another reason we have to fight the bad image we get for circumstances like this. Sorry for the cadet and her family.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Logged
EMT-83
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,862

« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2018, 06:26:17 PM »

It would appear that the incident(s) occurred while both parties were cadets, which would put the male at age 20 or younger.

The only silver lining in this cloud is the decisive action taken by the officer reporting the situation.
Logged
CAPLTC
Forum Regular

Posts: 136
Unit: MER

« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2018, 08:59:28 PM »

It would appear that the incident(s) occurred while both parties were cadets, which would put the male at age 20 or younger.
The only silver lining in this cloud is the decisive action taken by the officer reporting the situation.

Yes. CPPT is important and compliance should be constantly evaluated by Squadrons.
CAP staffers reported it:
"Faust said the incidents came to light on May 2, when Civil Air Patrol Lt. Matthew Bartal reported an alleged sexual assault incident between two cadets."
Logged
"Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact." -- SECDEF Mattis
Johnny Yuma
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 611

« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2018, 10:12:40 PM »

A couple observations:

1. A $10K unsecured bail (effectively an own recognizance bond) for 6 sex crimes with a minor doesn't lead me to believe that anyone really considers this guy to be a deviant. I've seen higher bail for nonperson misdemeanors around my area.

2. Let's assume that they were dating as cadets, even then he would have been in violation of Pennsylvania law however CAP's cadet protection program has no mandate to report.

3. If the media report is correct (they rarely are, but let's play along) sounds like his own admission to the relationship is what cooked his goose. THere's no mention of the 'victim' disclosure here. This is why you never, EVER, talk to the police without a lawyer in these situations.

4. Notice that it was a local member who reported the activity and not NHQ, Inc.? I'm wondering if this was someone legally required to report by state law or was it a member violating NHQ, Inc's own Cadet Protection policy in not reporting the abuse to NHQ, Inc. first? I'm also surprised that the media named the CAP member who reported it, that's usually not done.
Logged
"And Saint Attila raised the Holy Hand Grenade up on high saying, "Oh Lord, Bless us this Holy Hand Grenade, and with it smash our enemies to tiny bits. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and stoats, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and lima bean-"
 
" Skip a bit, brother."
 
"And then the Lord spake, saying: "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. "Three" shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. "Four" shalt thou not count, and neither count thou two, execpting that thou then goest on to three. Five is RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade to-wards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuffit. Amen."

Armaments Chapter One, verses nine through twenty-seven:
Fubar
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 672

« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2018, 03:59:17 AM »

4. Notice that it was a local member who reported the activity and not NHQ, Inc.? I'm wondering if this was someone legally required to report by state law or was it a member violating NHQ, Inc's own Cadet Protection policy in not reporting the abuse to NHQ, Inc. first? I'm also surprised that the media named the CAP member who reported it, that's usually not done.

One of the articles indicated the person who reported this to the police is both a CAP member and a police chief. I'm sure he had a duty to report (I don't recall if he reported it to his own agency or to another).
Logged
sarmed1
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 926

« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2018, 11:42:30 AM »

4. Notice that it was a local member who reported the activity and not NHQ, Inc.? I'm wondering if this was someone legally required to report by state law or was it a member violating NHQ, Inc's own Cadet Protection policy in not reporting the abuse to NHQ, Inc. first? I'm also surprised that the media named the CAP member who reported it, that's usually not done.

One of the articles indicated the person who reported this to the police is both a CAP member and a police chief. I'm sure he had a duty to report (I don't recall if he reported it to his own agency or to another).

In part due to multiple scandals involving sexual abuse of children, PA revamped its child abuse reporting requirements a few years back.  Pretty much any Fire/EMS/Police personnel have to file a report as well as many other groupings of individuals.  CAP members irregardless of professional requirements also fall under a mandatory reporter category

Quote
•An individual paid or unpaid; who, on the basis of the individual’s role as an integral part of a regularly scheduled program, activity or service, accepts responsibility for a child

Also in accordance with the PA law, CAP members in PA are required to present and have on file proof of a PA state police background check (FBI background check if a PA resident less than 10 years) as well as a PA Childline abuse registry background check.  Mandated reporters can actually be criminally charged for failure to report suspected abuse- 2nd degree misdemeanor or a up to a 3rd degree felony depending on the severity of the abuse (F3 charge if a 1st degree felony or higher and has direct knowledge)
Logged
Mark Kleibscheidel
TSgt USAFR
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,622

« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2018, 11:55:49 AM »

Who is responsible for getting those background checks in PAWG and who pays for them?

Presumably there is a special checklist for new members in PA?

What about transient members who come for say HMRS?
Logged


RMW14
Member

Posts: 63
Unit: NER-PA-010

« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2018, 12:05:51 PM »

The PSP background check as well as the Child Welfare checks are done by the state for free for CAP members. The FBI background check is the responsibility of the member if they have not lived in the state for 10 consecutive years.

The checklist and the links to the respective webpages for the checks can be found on the PAWG website, http://www.pawg.cap.gov/clearances . A new membership package will not be processed by by NHQ without the background checks being completed. Any member who transfers in, needs to have them completed but I am not sure the time frame.

I will ask my better half about that part and the transient members for clarification on the procedure when she gets home from work. She is responsible for insuring everyone's the background checks are in compliance at the Wing level.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2018, 12:11:03 PM by RMW14 » Logged
Ryan Weir Capt
Deputy Commander for Seniors Jesse Jones Composite Squadron 304
Expert Ranger #274
CMD PAWG Central
IC3 (T),AOBD,GBD,GTL, GTM1, UDF, MO, MS, MRO
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,861

« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2018, 12:08:19 PM »

I like how everybody is looking at the damage control that CAP is doing. Where were the parents on both sides of this?
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
sarmed1
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 926

« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2018, 12:58:18 PM »

...

What about transient members who come for say HMRS?

I don't remember the exact wording, but there is a provision in the state statute that discusses transient persons, it has a maximum number of days per calendar year that they can be present in the state without having to submit a background check documents.

MK
Logged
Mark Kleibscheidel
TSgt USAFR
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,622

« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2018, 01:02:37 PM »

...

What about transient members who come for say HMRS?

I don't remember the exact wording, but there is a provision in the state statute that discusses transient persons, it has a maximum number of days per calendar year that they can be present in the state without having to submit a background check documents.

MK

But do transient members still become mandatory reporters?  I would imagine the answer is "yes".

Is this something that members are briefed on when they come to PAWG for CAP activities?
Logged


Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 625

« Reply #13 on: May 24, 2018, 01:07:20 PM »


In part due to multiple scandals involving sexual abuse of children, PA revamped its child abuse reporting requirements a few years back.  Pretty much any Fire/EMS/Police personnel have to file a report as well as many other groupings of individuals.  CAP members irregardless of professional requirements also fall under a mandatory reporter category



It's easy to see why PA is hypersensitive to this issue, given the decades long cesspit at Penn State football.  The guy who brought it to light was the butt of a lot of pressure AND personal consequences from every person in the chain of command above him.   https://www.npr.org/2011/11/08/142111804/penn-state-abuse-scandal-a-guide-and-timeline
« Last Edit: May 24, 2018, 01:11:20 PM by Live2Learn » Logged
sarmed1
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 926

« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2018, 01:09:53 PM »

A couple observations:

1. A $10K unsecured bail (effectively an own recognizance bond) for 6 sex crimes with a minor doesn't lead me to believe that anyone really considers this guy to be a deviant. I've seen higher bail for nonperson misdemeanors around my area.

2. Let's assume that they were dating as cadets, even then he would have been in violation of Pennsylvania law however CAP's cadet protection program has no mandate to report.

3. If the media report is correct (they rarely are, but let's play along) sounds like his own admission to the relationship is what cooked his goose. THere's no mention of the 'victim' disclosure here. This is why you never, EVER, talk to the police without a lawyer in these situations.

4. Notice that it was a local member who reported the activity and not NHQ, Inc.? I'm wondering if this was someone legally required to report by state law or was it a member violating NHQ, Inc's own Cadet Protection policy in not reporting the abuse to NHQ, Inc. first? I'm also surprised that the media named the CAP member who reported it, that's usually not done.

From 52-10
e. Mandatory Reporters. As mentioned in 1-1c, some members are required to report their suspicions of abuse to law enforcement due to their work-related responsibilities. Mandatory report-ers will report in accordance with law, in addition to taking any other actions required by this regulation. 

Given, it says work related, but like I posted above, PA has included a definition that encompasses CAP members in the Mandatory Reporting group.

mk
Logged
Mark Kleibscheidel
TSgt USAFR
sarmed1
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 926

« Reply #15 on: May 24, 2018, 01:17:04 PM »


In part due to multiple scandals involving sexual abuse of children, PA revamped its child abuse reporting requirements a few years back.  Pretty much any Fire/EMS/Police personnel have to file a report as well as many other groupings of individuals.  CAP members irregardless of professional requirements also fall under a mandatory reporter category



It's easy to see why PA is hypersensitive to this issue, given the decades long cesspit at Penn State football.  The guy who brought it to light was the butt of a lot of pressure AND personal consequences from every person in the chain of command above him.   [url]https://www.npr.org/2011/11/08/142111804/penn-state-abuse-scandal-a-guide-and-timeline[/url

The Sandusky scandal was just part of the problem.  There were also a number of problems with a Philadelphia area church that had similar arguments:  Those in question said they reported their suspicions up the chain, and it wasn't their fault that those up the food chain didn't do anything about it.  That is pretty much why they changed to say the person with the suspicion is the one who has to report it to the state.

MK
Logged
Mark Kleibscheidel
TSgt USAFR
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,184

« Reply #16 on: May 24, 2018, 01:24:17 PM »

And a couple of observations in response, mostly echoing others:

A couple observations:

1. A $10K unsecured bail (effectively an own recognizance bond) for 6 sex crimes with a minor doesn't lead me to believe that anyone really considers this guy to be a deviant. I've seen higher bail for nonperson misdemeanors around my area.

Generally concur.  Courts try to treat the most serious cases differently than the less serious matters.  But all criminal matters are serious business.

Quote
2. Let's assume that they were dating as cadets, even then he would have been in violation of Pennsylvania law however CAP's cadet protection program has no mandate to report.

A clarification, CAPR 60-1 contains several "mandates" to report.  Adult members who have a reasonable suspicion of abuse are required to report it through the chain of command.  Paragraph 4.2.  Further any member who is a mandatory reporter under state of Federal law must also comply with that requirement, and the regulation requires that as well:

Quote from: CAPR 60-2, paragraph 4.3.4
Mandatory reporters will report in accordance with law, in addition to taking any other actions required by this regulation.

Interestingly, as others have pointed out, Pennsylvania has a unique state law that appears to make even CAP volunteers mandatory reporters under their 2014 Child Protective Services Law.
Quote
[. . .]

4. Notice that it was a local member who reported the activity and not NHQ, Inc.? I'm wondering if this was someone legally required to report by state law or was it a member violating NHQ, Inc's own Cadet Protection policy in not reporting the abuse to NHQ, Inc. first? I'm also surprised that the media named the CAP member who reported it, that's usually not done.

Since it was reported by a local member, it appears that it was indeed someone required to report by state law.  There is no requirement that either the report to law enforcement or to the CAP chain of command be done "first."  As a practical matter, both can be done in a matter of just minutes.  And should be.

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

Logged
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,873
Unit: of issue

« Reply #17 on: May 24, 2018, 01:25:22 PM »

But do transient members still become mandatory reporters?  I would imagine the answer is "yes".

Is this something that members are briefed on when they come to PAWG for CAP activities?

IIRC, there was a deal with HMRS getting staff from outside PA for the Summer school due to the transient members clause.
Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
sarmed1
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 926

« Reply #18 on: May 24, 2018, 01:47:32 PM »

Quote
As a practical matter, both can be done in a matter of just minutes.

As having to have done this under a different hat:  There is a 24 hour phone number or an online form (PA state) it takes like 2 minutes, you can call CAP after that.

MK
Logged
Mark Kleibscheidel
TSgt USAFR
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 776
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2018, 12:04:01 AM »


In part due to multiple scandals involving sexual abuse of children, PA revamped its child abuse reporting requirements a few years back.  Pretty much any Fire/EMS/Police personnel have to file a report as well as many other groupings of individuals.  CAP members irregardless of professional requirements also fall under a mandatory reporter category



It's easy to see why PA is hypersensitive to this issue, given the decades long cesspit at Penn State football.  The guy who brought it to light was the butt of a lot of pressure AND personal consequences from every person in the chain of command above him.   [url]https://www.npr.org/2011/11/08/142111804/penn-state-abuse-scandal-a-guide-and-timeline[/url

The Sandusky scandal was just part of the problem.  There were also a number of problems with a Philadelphia area church that had similar arguments:  Those in question said they reported their suspicions up the chain, and it wasn't their fault that those up the food chain didn't do anything about it.  That is pretty much why they changed to say the person with the suspicion is the one who has to report it to the state.

MK

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Scranton had to pay $3 million for ONE child sexual abuse case alone. They had to sell a former seminary and their Diocesan HQ, among other things, to raise money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 04:21:15 AM by Mitchell 1969 » Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 625

« Reply #20 on: May 25, 2018, 12:07:08 AM »


In part due to multiple scandals involving sexual abuse of children, PA revamped its child abuse reporting requirements a few years back.  Pretty much any Fire/EMS/Police personnel have to file a report as well as many other groupings of individuals.  CAP members irregardless of professional requirements also fall under a mandatory reporter category



It's easy to see why PA is hypersensitive to this issue, given the decades long cesspit at Penn State football.  The guy who brought it to light was the butt of a lot of pressure AND personal consequences from every person in the chain of command above him.   [url]https://www.npr.org/2011/11/08/142111804/penn-state-abuse-scandal-a-guide-and-timeline[/url

The Sandusky scandal was just part of the problem.  There were also a number of problems with a Philadelphia area church that had similar arguments:  Those in question said they reported their suspicions up the chain, and it wasn't their fault that those up the food chain didn't do anything about it.  That is pretty much why they changed to say the person with the suspicion is the one who has to report it to the state.

MK

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Scranton had to pay $3 million for ONE child sexual abuse case alone. They had to sell a firmer seminary and their Diocesan HQ, among other things, to raise money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmm.  Looks like the PSU conspirators of silence got off a bit easier than the Catholic Church.
Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,192

« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2018, 03:17:39 PM »

All this does for me is solidify why we have a Cadet Protection Program to begin with, and that, while everyone sighs when the "CPP/CPPT card" is drawn, there's a seriousness to be said about it. And this applies to "Adult Leaders" as well as cadets over 18.

The reality of it is that it's in your backyard, not some theoretical thing that occurs in other organizations.
Logged
Johnny Yuma
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 611

« Reply #22 on: May 28, 2018, 08:56:53 AM »

Ok, PAWG's got some specific state laws that address the mandatory reporting. Personally I prefer this over simply turning over to NHQ and let them handle. Still I wonder how long the relationship lasted before it was reported.

I too wonder what the parent's roles in all this were and I'm wondering if that didn't contribute to the low bail?

I'm still of the opinion, this incident having solidified it in my mind, that the best "bright line" CAP can have regarding a cadet abuse policy is ending the cadet program at 18 so there's no question as to age and legal status and IMHO protects everyone far better than the existing policy. I'll go one step further , reconstitute the old Senior Member Transition Program and let cadets turning 18 go to the dark side and earn their FO/TFO/SFO based on achieving the Mitchell, Earhart and Spaatz awards.

 
Logged
"And Saint Attila raised the Holy Hand Grenade up on high saying, "Oh Lord, Bless us this Holy Hand Grenade, and with it smash our enemies to tiny bits. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and stoats, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and lima bean-"
 
" Skip a bit, brother."
 
"And then the Lord spake, saying: "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. "Three" shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. "Four" shalt thou not count, and neither count thou two, execpting that thou then goest on to three. Five is RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade to-wards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuffit. Amen."

Armaments Chapter One, verses nine through twenty-seven:
Johnny Yuma
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 611

« Reply #23 on: May 28, 2018, 10:36:06 AM »

All this does for me is solidify why we have a Cadet Protection Program to begin with, and that, while everyone sighs when the "CPP/CPPT card" is drawn, there's a seriousness to be said about it. And this applies to "Adult Leaders" as well as cadets over 18.

The reality of it is that it's in your backyard, not some theoretical thing that occurs in other organizations.

I agree, but there are still flaws in the policy. The policy was written in the 80's to address pedophile predators that seems to have morphed into something originally unintended.

IMO the Boundary Violations are too subjective and rife for misinterpretation and abuse by commanders. I also believe that they're a slippery slope into CAP involving itself into the outside lives of its members and their families that simply isn't their purview and the number of exceptions written into the policy bear that out. I can also see an unscrupulous commander abusing BV's against members not unlike the non-renewal  issues of the past? Unit commander's got beef with Joe Senior member. Joe Senior member ran into Cadet Judy at McDonald's last week and he answered some CAP related questions she had? Boundary violation, 60 days off and a demotion. Yeah, he'll get it back after appeal but the stigma's still there.

This incident notwithstanding, the over 18 cadet - Senior issue is still a big problem with me. The policy makes cadets over 18 'kind of adults' with all the responsibilities of and none of the benefits. The argument that a Senior member holds control over the subordinate no matter the age of the cadet holds no water for me, here's why:

For example - A 19 year old Senior Flight Officer engaged to be married to a 20 year old Cadet Colonel faces termination from membership. The terminating authority, a 70 year old Wing Commander, just happens to be knocking boots with an 18 year old SMWOG who's a Senior in high school.   The former is a mandatory termination by policy yet the latter, while clearly inappropriate, is not actionable. Bright line? My posterior.

Personally I'd make the "bright line" a "clear line" by ending the program at 18 and establishing that any involvement with cadets outside of CAP must be nonsexual in nature and have the prior approval of the cadet's parents. This would make clear that sexual conduct with cadets will not be tolerated under any circumstances while leaving parents the only arbiter in who is involved in their kid's activities outside CAP where it belongs.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 11:18:05 AM by Johnny Yuma » Logged
"And Saint Attila raised the Holy Hand Grenade up on high saying, "Oh Lord, Bless us this Holy Hand Grenade, and with it smash our enemies to tiny bits. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and stoats, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and lima bean-"
 
" Skip a bit, brother."
 
"And then the Lord spake, saying: "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. "Three" shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. "Four" shalt thou not count, and neither count thou two, execpting that thou then goest on to three. Five is RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade to-wards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuffit. Amen."

Armaments Chapter One, verses nine through twenty-seven:
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 394
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #24 on: May 28, 2018, 12:28:11 PM »

Ok, PAWG's got some specific state laws that address the mandatory reporting. Personally I prefer this over simply turning over to NHQ and let them handle. Still I wonder how long the relationship lasted before it was reported.

I too wonder what the parent's roles in all this were and I'm wondering if that didn't contribute to the low bail?

I'm still of the opinion, this incident having solidified it in my mind, that the best "bright line" CAP can have regarding a cadet abuse policy is ending the cadet program at 18 so there's no question as to age and legal status and IMHO protects everyone far better than the existing policy. I'll go one step further , reconstitute the old Senior Member Transition Program and let cadets turning 18 go to the dark side and earn their FO/TFO/SFO based on achieving the Mitchell, Earhart and Spaatz awards.
Sadly, I agree.
Logged
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,184

« Reply #25 on: May 28, 2018, 12:53:38 PM »

I hope you are enjoying your long weekend.

We've talked about this before, and I understand that reasonable minds can certainly differ about some aspects of our CPP.  But I need to clarify a few points.


I agree, but there are still flaws in the policy. The policy was written in the 80's to address pedophile predators that seems to have morphed into something originally unintended.

You are certainly correct that we initially created the CPP in the 80s in direct response to several "senior member pedophile predators" who molested cadets and resulted in the loss of insurance coverage for CAP.  Other youth organizations -- notably the Boy Scouts -- were grappling with the same issues at the time.

And no policy is perfect, which is why we periodically review it and with member input, modify it.  The most recent revision is about three months old.

Quote
IMO the Boundary Violations [Concerns] are too subjective and rife for misinterpretation and abuse by commanders. [. . .]I can also see an unscrupulous commander abusing BV's against members not unlike the non-renewal  issues of the past? Unit commander's got beef with Joe Senior member. Joe Senior member ran into Cadet Judy at McDonald's last week and he answered some CAP related questions she had? Boundary violation [Concern], 60 days off and a demotion. Yeah, he'll get it back after appeal but the stigma's still there.

I think you may be somewhat confused over the regulation.  It is most certainly not a violation of the CPP to have a chance encounter with a cadet outside of a CAP activity and have a brief conversation.  Indeed in smaller communities, it is almost inevitable that you will meet a cadet when you are out and about. (See CAPR 60-2, para 2.8.3.1)

But the "60 day suspension and a demotion" provision has nothing to down with normal Boundary Concerns (which, after all, normally are corrected with a friendly reminder), and everything to do with violating one of the Key Practices, such as sexting a cadet, providing drugs or alchohol, actually dating, etc.. (Para 2.10)

And if your concern is less over the actual CPP and more about petty and vindictive commanders "out to get" people, this is simply not a CPP issue.  It's just like a commander suspending and demoting a member for not being safety current, being late on suspense item, or a uniform infraction.  IOW, a command issue unrelated to the CPP.

Quote
This incident notwithstanding, the over 18 cadet - Senior issue is still a big problem with me. The policy makes cadets over 18 'kind of adults' with all the responsibilities of and none of the benefits. The argument that a Senior member holds control over the subordinate no matter the age of the cadet holds no water for me, here's why:

For example - A 19 year old Senior Flight Officer engaged to be married to a 20 year old Cadet Colonel faces termination from membership. The terminating authority, a 70 year old Wing Commander, just happens to be knocking boots with an 18 year old SMWOG who's a Senior in high school.   The former is a mandatory termination by policy yet the latter, while clearly inappropriate, is not actionable. Bright line? My posterior.

So let's talk about your example.  Assuming that the engaged 19 year old senior and 20 year old cadet are dating and engaging in the usual romantic behaviors typical of engaged couples, that suggests that the senior either just joined CAP or has been knowingly violating our rules for some time.  (Heck, maybe the senior was a cadet until recently, and they dated when both were cadets - which is not improper.)

So the brand new senior contemplating a lifetime commitment to the cadet could simply step away from CAP until after the marriage, or the cadet turns 21.  Not sure I see a big moral dilemma here.

And perhaps it is not surprising that a Cadet Protection Program does not protect non-cadets.  I have a couple of draft Senior Member Protection Programs on the hard drive somewhere, waiting for the forthcoming Divine intervention necessary for me to become National Commander.  And in one of those drafts, I do prohibit intimate relationships between seniors in the same chain of command.  ANother draft simply requires that the relationship be disclosed and the more senior member disqualified from decisions involving the more junior member.

Quote
Personally I'd make the "bright line" a "clear line" by ending the program at 18 and establishing that any involvement with cadets outside of CAP must be nonsexual in nature and have the prior approval of the cadet's parents. This would make clear that sexual conduct with cadets will not be tolerated under any circumstances while leaving parents the only arbiter in who is involved in their kid's activities outside CAP where it belongs.

One of the  problem with the "cut the CP off at 18" position, is that 18 is just as arbitrary an age as 21 in this regard, and doesn't really address abuse issues -- just shifts the ages of those involved.  Kind of like the original story that started this particular thread.  18 is not the age of majority in every state, and is not the same as the "age of consent" which varies even more widely from state to state.

But perhaps the biggest issue is that we do some of our best work with cadets 18 and over.  These are the IACE cadets, CAC chars, cadet encampment commanders -- significant positions that carry great rewards in terms of training that can be applied in the real world.

It seems a shame to throw 10% of our best and brightest cadets out of the program simply because a handful of seniors can't seem to stop using the cadet program as a dating pool.

Talk about babies and bath water . . . . .
« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 01:09:51 PM by Ned » Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,168

« Reply #26 on: May 28, 2018, 02:04:20 PM »



 And in one of those drafts, I do prohibit intimate relationships between seniors in the same chain of command.

Hopefully Seniors that are married couples are excepted.  ;)
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,184

« Reply #27 on: May 28, 2018, 03:14:13 PM »


Hopefully Seniors that are married couples are excepted.  ;)
I have been married to another senior active in CP for decades, so there is that.

And there sure are a lot of multi-member families in CAP, and it is almost always a good thing.

But family relationships between members in the chain of command can be a significant source of problems in CAP.  It carries at least an appearance of favoritism.  Whether it is a squadron commander parent with a child applying for the cadet commander slot, or wing commander married to the chief of staff it can create real problems.  Most businesses have anti-nepotism rules, and CAP would do well to have something in this area.  There are certainly ways to deal with it so that all members can enjoy a successful CAP career.
Logged
Johnny Yuma
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 611

« Reply #28 on: May 28, 2018, 05:34:07 PM »

Ned,

I was going to go down the points, but my cut and paste-fu is weak today.

I do believe that many of the boundary concerns allows CAP to overstep where CAP's authority in their member's lives end and will be abused by some in command. If I need my house painted or have farm work and I know a couple older CAP cadets in college looking to make some spare cash in the Summer is it really CAP's business who I employ off CAP time? That said, sexting and providing drugs/alcohol to cadets deserves a 2B, not a 60 day suspension and a demotion. 

You cannot have a 'bright line' with 18-20 year old cadets and 18-20 year old Senior members. Pick an age, cut the program off and call it good. The cadet program starts at 12 and takes 38 months minimum to complete, that's plenty of time for a cadet to get his Spaatz even if he/she joins late and we know most cadets don't go this far. Other options can be created for cadets who age out at 18 to participate in programs, like re-instituting the old SMTP again.

Yes, I know the CPP does not protect non cadets, but it does bring to light a clear double standard and destroys the argument that we're protecting someone from undue influence or exploitation brought on them by a superior. In fact we currently have a number of active Senior members, including current and former corporate officers and wing commanders, who are in or have had marriages that began as either cadet/senior relationships in one form or another or else began as a teacher-mentor/student relationship.  Just how deep should CAP delve into the personal activities of its members outside of CAP?
Logged
"And Saint Attila raised the Holy Hand Grenade up on high saying, "Oh Lord, Bless us this Holy Hand Grenade, and with it smash our enemies to tiny bits. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and stoats, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and lima bean-"
 
" Skip a bit, brother."
 
"And then the Lord spake, saying: "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. "Three" shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. "Four" shalt thou not count, and neither count thou two, execpting that thou then goest on to three. Five is RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade to-wards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuffit. Amen."

Armaments Chapter One, verses nine through twenty-seven:
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,184

« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2018, 06:24:54 PM »

Ned,

I was going to go down the points, but my cut and paste-fu is weak today.

I hear you.  I'm trying to respond while watching the ribs on the BBQ.

Quote
I do believe that many of the boundary concerns allows CAP to overstep where CAP's authority in their member's lives end and will be abused by some in command. If I need my house painted or have farm work and I know a couple older CAP cadets in college looking to make some spare cash in the Summer is it really CAP's business who I employ off CAP time? That said, sexting and providing drugs/alcohol to cadets deserves a 2B, not a 60 day suspension and a demotion.

I understand that reasonable minds can differ about where we draw the lines.  But as you know, many of our worst cases began with seniors "befriending" (grooming) cadets away from CAP activities.  I think it is likely that 9 times out of 10 there would be no reason to worry about a senior hiring a cadet or two for house painting, yard work, or even in a business.  But if we have learned anything in the CPP business, is that we are terrible at separating the great majority of well intentioned, kind, compassionate seniors trying to do the cadets a solid from the few who will take advantage of the situation.  Sometimes even in hindsight we are surprised.

So we have tried very hard to craft a set of rules that will allow us to continue with our vigorous and challenging program run by volunteer leader/mentors like yourself, while at the same time trying to minimize the number of cadets who are victimized.  Every time we have an incident (like, for instance, the one that started the thread), we look at the people involved, the facts, and the rules to see if there is something we can and should change to prevent similar future victimizations.  That's one of the ways the rules evolve.

Quote
You cannot have a 'bright line' with 18-20 year old cadets and 18-20 year old Senior members. Pick an age, cut the program off and call it good.

Why not?  It has worked pretty well for 75 years give or take.  As we have touched on before, there is nothing magic about the age of 18 (or 21 for that matter).  Or having membership catagories that overlap for something like 7% of the membership. 

That said, if we started the senior program at age 22, I'd be OK with that.
Quote
The cadet program starts at 12 and takes 38 months minimum to complete, that's plenty of time for a cadet to get his Spaatz even if he/she joins late and we know most cadets don't go this far.

I'm not sure I see your point.  In theory one can earn the rank of Eagle Scout in less than two years, but there is no serious discussion about tossing Scouts out when they hit 13 or so.

Seriously, while the Spaatz is our highest award, learning does not stop the moment you pin on the third diamond.  I've escorted Spaatz cadets on IACE, taught them at COS, and worked with them as senior cadet encampment leaders.  All seemed to be benefiting from the program despite having earned the "terminal award."

Quote
Other options can be created for cadets who age out at 18 to participate in programs, like re-instituting the old SMTP again.

As you know, we've tried that before.  Twice.  And if failed both times because there is no particularly good reason for an 18+ cadet to turn to the dark side, and a lot of good reasons not to.  It failed even when we maintained eligibility for scholarships and the Spaatz.  SMTP has twice been proved to be a solution in desperate need of a problem.

(Disclosure:  My lovely spouse earned her Spaatz under the old STP, but hers was an unusual situation triggered by a military deployment.)

Quote
Yes, I know the CPP does not protect non cadets, but it does bring to light a clear double standard and destroys the argument that we're protecting someone from undue influence or exploitation brought on them by a superior.

Don't get me started about unfair double standards imposed on cadets by our senior leaders as a reaction to a set of bad facts.  Like the regulation that would allow us to rescind cadet awards after a former cadet seriously misbehaves.  (Right after the Texas Cadet Murders).  I stood on the floor of the National Board meeting and pointed out that it seemed a little silly in the first place.  I'll bet high schools would like to rescind diplomas, churches would like to revoke any honors awarded, etc. for conduct committed years later.  But most importantly, it seemed more than a little hypocritical to pointedly exclude senior member awards from rescission after terrible acts.  I did not win that particular battle.

I guess the point is that my job at NHQ is to assist with doctrine that protects cadets. Put me in charge of the other 55% of the membership and I will dust off my Senior Protection Program drafts.

Just because seniors can misbehave among themselves does not mean I should allow it to affect cadets.

Quote
In fact we currently have a number of active Senior members, including current and former corporate officers and wing commanders, who are in or have had marriages that began as either cadet/senior relationships in one form or another or else began as a teacher-mentor/student relationship.  Just how deep should CAP delve into the personal activities of its members outside of CAP?

I wholeheartedly agree that this is certainly part of the problem in achieving consensus on our rules.  Back in the 80's when I first started talking about seniors not having sex with cadets under 18 (yup, that was the rule at first), I was amazed with how many wing commanders saw nothing wrong with it, and more than a few, as you point out, had dated younger cadets.  Thankfully, it was not the majority and the National Board wisely decided to exclude cadets from the dating pool of avaricious older seniors.

Need to check on the ribs and get another cool drink on this warm day.  Thank you for the conversation.
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,168

« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2018, 06:39:01 PM »


That said, if we started the senior program at age 22, I'd be OK with that.


Me too. If a Cadet could stay a Cadet until 22, that would give them more time to finish up flying lessons before aging out. Some Cadets that want to, can't start until they get a decent part time job to pay for it.  If that means 17 or 18, then it gives very little time to complete their PPL.  We have one in our Squadron that is running up against the deadline and may not finish.

(But I drift from the topic at hand. Sorry.)
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
Toad1168
Forum Regular

Posts: 156
Unit: Missouri

« Reply #31 on: May 30, 2018, 03:06:46 PM »


Also in accordance with the PA law, CAP members in PA are required to present and have on file proof of a PA state police background check (FBI background check if a PA resident less than 10 years) as well as a PA Childline abuse registry background check. 


This is something that I would like to have CAP adopt nationwide and require a resubmission of the checks on a timetable.  Even if it is at the expense of the member.  Unfortunately, the FBI check does not and quite frankly, cannot go deep enough.  Some offenses are only able to located through a state or local level records search.  This is because not all offenses are reported to NCIC.  Only offenses reported to NCIC would be discoverable under the FBI background check.

I have thought it was interesting that a driving record requires resubmission, but the background check is a one and done.  Granted, there is the initiative for a recheck through the private contractor that came up a while back.
[fixed quotes]
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 04:44:08 PM by SarDragon » Logged
Toad
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,184

« Reply #32 on: May 30, 2018, 04:34:52 PM »

Recently, CAP indeed began periodically rescreening members.

See the CAPTalk thread here

We are always looking for ways to improve the screening process.  Out of curiosity, what non-reportable offenses [to NCIC] should be we looking at?



Part of the problem with youth-protection programs generally, is that criminal history screening alone is not as helpful in identifying risk as you might think.  Vanishingly few applicants with a criminal history suggesting a danger to young people apply in the first place.  As in virtually none.  Academics believe that it is more the threat of screening than the actual screening process itself that provides the value.

"Oh, you guys do an FBI criminal history check on every applicant?  Great!  I'll bring those fingerprint cards back in two weeks. For sure . . . "  [Applicant then ghosts the process.]

Other issues arise with youthful applicants (say, under 22 or so) apply.  In most states, youthful "convictions" in juvenile court do not appear on criminal history records, even for serious offenses like sexual assaults or weapons.  Some states have various record-clearing programs that "unconvict" former defendants of crimes, which also make criminal history screenings problematic at times.

Screening is accordingly necessary but insufficient on its own.  And it sounds like we agree that periodic rescreening is also a best practice. As part of the screening process, CAP also carefully interviews each applicant using a standardized set of questions to help de-select applicants who might present a higher risk to cadets. 


And of course, we have a comprehensive set of rules in the CPP designed specifically to reduce risk of physical or emotional damage to our cadets.
Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,192

« Reply #33 on: May 30, 2018, 05:01:03 PM »

First of all...

Quote
Need to check on the ribs and get another cool drink on this warm day.

My entire Monday  8)


Onto the topic at hand...

I think there's a point to be made here about comparing the 18-20 year old cadets to the 18-20 year old seniors. So there are two-and-a-half sides to that:

1.) Cadets, regardless of age, are in the position of being a protege. Senior members are trainers and mentors in their own right. Those who work with cadets have this responsibility.

1.5) Cadets over the age of 18 are legal adults. Why shouldn't they do as they so choose? Well, this sort of refers back to #1.

2.) Seniors at 18 can be compared to a college student who is 18. A university may have rules on professor-student relationships because of the possibility of an abuse of power. Other institutions, such as a corporate office, may have a rule against romantic relationships between a director and line employee. The military has a similar prohibition in respect to officers having romantic relationships with enlisted personnel. So this thought process isn't new. Refer back to #1.5.


Let's also keep in mind that CPP is a CYA for CAP. As Ned pointed out earlier, CAP and the Boy Scouts, circa the same era, among other youth organizations, instituted child protection policies. It's not that the policies necessarily were 'significantly' effective in preventing abuse, but they set the tone for the organization as to what the group's stance is, including what is and is not tolerated behavior. This makes it easier to terminate someone from the organization for a boundary violation---in avoidance of a civil suit---and also works to come back around and say "Look, we have an established policy here. We teach our members this. We do not tolerate this behavior and do not condone (what happened)." It's a media nightmare to not institute such a policy should abuse occur and become public.

The enforcement side is a whole different game. That can be a hit or miss, culturally.

CPP will not prevent abuse. It helps to mitigate abuse; to reduce the likelihood of occurrence. You have more 'eyes on' in general operating environments. You have more people who understand the policy. And there are known repercussions for violating it. It cannot physically stop abuse; that's the role of the third person-deep. It isn't foolproof, but it's what we have at our disposal. Schools face the same challenge.


Now, on my own personal stance, I think we run into other issues with the age gap from 12-20, not necessarily related to the relationships between cadets-cadets, and cadets-seniors. That's not as common of an issue so much as it is the maturity of training subject matter and the operating environment. But that's a totally separate conversation.
Logged
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 776
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #34 on: May 31, 2018, 12:07:46 AM »

Recently, CAP indeed began periodically rescreening members.

See the CAPTalk thread here

We are always looking for ways to improve the screening process.  Out of curiosity, what non-reportable offenses [to NCIC] should be we looking at?

I don’t think it’s a matter of looking for things non-reportable to NCIC. It’s literally a matter of LE agencies, courts and military services failing to report to FBI (and thus to NCIC) some things that already should be reported.

I’ve seen plenty of cases where this has happened. Sometimes it’s due to faulty processes at the agency, or assumptions that another entity will do the FBI notification. Other times, especially in small agencies, it just doesn’t get done because it doesn’t get done - it goes into an “out” basket, but there’s nobody to pick it up and it eventually goes...”over there somewhere, and Mary Beth will file it next week when she gets back from visiting her sister in Omaha...” And it gets dutifully filed, still not having been sent to FBI.

I don’t know if it has been said yet, but the current CAP background process would most likely not have prevented or warned against the situation under discussion. That doesn’t mean that the process lacks value or should be abandoned. It just illustrates that the background process is simply a component of a larger program which has no end date. Kind of like asking “who is it?” before opening the door is no guarantee, but it’s still a good idea and a good place to start.

Also - I concur with the view that even the possibility of a background check can act as a deterrent. I’ve seen it happen outside of CAP. There’s usually some sort of justification offered as to why they should be exempt, but sticking to the policy ends up with them leaving, taking a set of background forms which they never will submit. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,192

« Reply #35 on: May 31, 2018, 09:36:00 AM »

I don’t know if it has been said yet, but the current CAP background process would most likely not have prevented or warned against the situation under discussion. That doesn’t mean that the process lacks value or should be abandoned. It just illustrates that the background process is simply a component of a larger program which has no end date. Kind of like asking “who is it?” before opening the door is no guarantee, but it’s still a good idea and a good place to start.

Also - I concur with the view that even the possibility of a background check can act as a deterrent. I’ve seen it happen outside of CAP. There’s usually some sort of justification offered as to why they should be exempt, but sticking to the policy ends up with them leaving, taking a set of background forms which they never will submit. 

Background checks, in most cases, won't really prevent the sexual/physical/emotional abuse of a person.

As my NCO said to me: "It's not the ones that pop up in the background check that worry me; it's the ones that we don't know about that don't have a record."

Background checks help up to say "Yanno, I don't think you're a good fit for this organization based on your past performance." And like you pointed out, it's only as good as the check---what data is entered into the national database. But the real mitigating factor is going to be situational awareness regardless of background checks. Even someone who passes a background check, with no criminal history, can be hazardous. You're more likely to face a problem with the person who never had a criminal record in sexual assault than someone who was caught and ended up on the registry.

Units also need to take the lead on following CAP policies when it comes to new recruits, particularly that there is a visitation period of 30 days and 3 meetings. Whether that's a good timeline is a separate discussion. But I've seen people float around at unit meetings that had not submitted an application after several months despite showing up week after week. To me, this person is a concern; maybe not from a criminality standpoint but as someone who hasn't been dedicated to make that leap and sign on the dotted line (if not the fault of the unit staff). If you have someone roaming around meetings, and they start to wander unattended---especially around cadets---bring it up to the staff and have it addressed. Existing members need to take some responsibility here. I don't care if it's a cadet's mom and she's just being friendly. I can't kick you out, but you can't be alone with cadets.
Logged
GaryVC
Forum Regular

Posts: 173
Unit: PCR-NV-070

« Reply #36 on: May 31, 2018, 11:57:24 AM »

If a Cadet could stay a Cadet until 22, that would give them more time to finish up flying lessons before aging out.

It would roughly coincide with the end of college, as well. Although I think this is a good idea, I expect that only a few cadets would choose this option. Years ago you could stay a cadet until your cadet membership expired. However, I can't think of anything useful I did with the four extra months.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [All] Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Man charged with sexually assaulting girl - Both in CAP
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.525 seconds with 25 queries.
click here to email me