CPPT: Females required when cadet females present?

[SM-MADDOG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SM-MADDOG]

Everyone knows that seniors can't be alone with cadets, male or female, except as permitted by regulation. You just follow the standard without giving it any more attention than it deserves.

Cite, please.

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

its is with our group command

[Eclipse]

Everyone knows that seniors can't be alone with cadets, male or female, except as permitted by regulation. You just follow the standard without giving it any more attention than it deserves.

Cite, please.

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

its is with our group command

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

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

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

[SM-MADDOG]

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

Everyone knows that seniors can't be alone with cadets, male or female, except as permitted by regulation. You just follow the standard without giving it any more attention than it deserves.

Cite, please.

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

its is with our group command

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

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

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

[Fifinella]

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

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

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

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

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

Ned,

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the dialogue.

Respectfully,

Judy

[Stonewall]

Here is my dilemma:

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

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

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

[Eclipse]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[lordmonar]

Here is my dilemma:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Eclipse]

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

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

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

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

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

[tjaxe]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Eclipse]

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

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

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

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

[Fifinella]

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

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

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

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

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

FWIW

[Stonewall]

I got some more feedback from my inquiry.

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

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

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

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

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

I will invite and encourage female seniors to attend.

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

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

[Eclipse]

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

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

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

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

[tjaxe]

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

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

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

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

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

[maverik]

I would like to input here:

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

Also what considers a senior member "qualified"?

[DC]

I would like to input here:

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

Also what considers a senior member "qualified"?

You are aware that the term 'commie' is generally known to Americans as a derogatory term for a Communist, right? Generally used during the Cold War to refer to the Soviets....

Just thought I'd ask....

[davidsinn]

Also what considers a senior member "qualified"?

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

[lordmonar]

Also what considers a senior member "qualified"?

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

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

[davidsinn]

Also what considers a senior member "qualified"?

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

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

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