Thanks, Dennis. I think a good portion of the angst here was the lack of EAA response to the questions posed. Thanks for participating.Quote:
Originally Posted by djenders
Ron Wanttaja
Printable View
Thanks, Dennis. I think a good portion of the angst here was the lack of EAA response to the questions posed. Thanks for participating.Quote:
Originally Posted by djenders
Ron Wanttaja
I suspect it's more timing than anything. The compliments start being exchanged, and the mods have to eventually step in. Ideally, they WON'T cite a particular comment; just post a general "Be nice, boys."Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmdive
In any case, consider: There are over 500 posts in this thread, the large majority of them critical of the EAA. They could have quashed the thread weeks ago, and probably had a pretty good justification for doing so.
I think it's a credit to the organization that they DO allow the beefing to continue.
Ron "Looks like I have to step up my game" Wanttaja
Huh?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
Last time I looked this was a membership organization. HQ has an obligation to listen to the beefing provided it is not hate speech.
Further, they have an obligation to listen (not to one single voice) but to get a sense of what membership desires and take that into their calculus.
If they truly don't like what I say, they do have the option of revoking my membership.
ted
Lets keep this simple. EAA wants to protect the national organization and to do so must protect under 18. In our society today with all the 10 commandments thrown out anything goes. Rules from the EAA and the 10 commandments are both rules. If a pilot says I wont' do a background check for what ever reason, it doesn't matter no one flies.
Last night we professionally covered the new youth protection plan by reading directly from EAA documentation and no adding opinions. All YE activity by the local chapter stopped last night. Why. Almost total back lash on doing the background checks. We have fly-ins where kids can fly in and that would be from an EAA chapter. Now all fly-ins have been delayed for risk of non compliance. My guess the average age of the members present were about 55. Make all the rules you want but several members stated if this was required to do the background check AND all the record keeping they would withdraw from the EAA and just have a pilots meeting in a public site. Perhaps this is short term but for now the yearly flying events for our chapter has stopped dead in it's tracks until we know from the members how many will do the training and background check. Continue making "rules" and see how it works out.
Beefing? Didn't you know? EAA is now 100% vegan. Just kidding! Seriously though, play nice folks. The comments, critiques, and criticism...it's all helpful and warranted. And needed, frankly. Just leave the personal attacks and bashing out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
With the requirement for the SSN removed, I completed both the online training and submitted for the background check. I don't like the fact that I had to do so, but I did so in order to experience the process first hand. The online training was pretty straightforward. I missed one specific policy-related answer because I didn't read the question carefully enough. Much of it was already known to me, but only because my church requires similar training (and a background check) before you can work with kids (or with senior adults - the fastest growing "target group" for abuse!) in any capacity.
I sincerely wish that the EAA leadership would have discussed the need for this more completely with the membership before taking the draconian measures they took. I have a "zero tolerance" position on abuse. It has no place in civilized society. That said, I also think the solutions implemented have more to do with "looking good in a jury room" than with actually preventing abuse. My primary concerns center on these specific areas:
1) The requirement to provide your SSN for the background check. This one has already been addressed - you can enter "999999999" in place of your actual SSN.
2) The requirement to retain records for 3-years, or however long your local statues require. In many states, the statute of limitations is 30 years AFTER the minor reaches 18 years of age. Since YE allows 8-year-olds to participate, that means that to be compliant, records need to be retained for 38+ years. My chapter has no permanent "home" office - we meet in a member's hangar at the airport. Where would we possibly safely store records for nearly 40 years? Is EAA HQ going to provide an archive facility for these records?
3) The policy is unclear about which specific records must be retained. It addresses attendance rosters, sign-in and sign-out lists, etc. Presumably, there must be a mechanism to document compliance with the "2-deep leadership" requirement, but that isn't made very clear in the policy. For several of these items, there have been "outside-the-policy" clarifications that alleviate some of the concerns (but not all). But the policy itself needs to be made crystal clear, because however the courts interpret that policy will determine whether the local chapter complied with the policy or not. Those "outside" opinions and clarifications will be meaningless. (And who is to say that 38 years from now, EAA members will still have access to the archives of this discussion group?)
4) Clarification to the policy as it addresses (or fails to address) the attendance of minors at EAA events that are not primarily intended for minors. This includes events such as chapter meetings, fly-ins, pancake breakfasts, chili cook-offs, build events, and even EAA AirVenture itself! Now that I'm finally retired, and can attend AirVenture Oshkosh, my wife and I have been volunteering on the Trams. I have no idea whether I would be required to complete the training and background check to comply with the policy or not. I definitely had kids riding the tram without parental supervision, and I always made a point of interacting with them. Would this be "legal" according to the new policy? I'm not sure, because the "2-deep" policy is not clearly articulated for this type of event, much less this specific situation.
I believe that the overwhelmingly vast majority of EAA members are good people with good intentions. And I KNOW that EAA's leadership believes this as well. That's what makes this whole mess so frustrating to me. The totally unnecessary "insult" to the integrity of the entire membership is the aspect of this whole process that bothers me the most. Any time a new policy like this is implemented, there is going to be resistance to change, feelings are going to be hurt, and people are going to have a lot of concern about it. But much of that could have been minimized by following the same "comment period" process we demand from the FAA and other government bodies. We demand it of them, yet we don't bother to follow it when we implement major, sweeping changes that affect the core values of our MEMBERSHIP! (Note - not EMPLOYEES, but MEMBERS!)
In the future, I hope EAA will adopt a new process (something like what I've outlined below) for making radical changes that affect the membership:
1) Begin with a rational, sincere explanation of the perceived need for the new policy.
2) Follow up with a clear and careful explanation of the proposed policy, with justification of each item.
3) Open up a comment period, to allow questions to be answered, clarifications made, etc.
4) Re-publish the policy (with changes highlighted) and offer a second (shorter) comment period.
5) Enact the final policy.
Thank you for listening.
Jim Parker, EAA 160604
Exactly Ron. As Glory already pointed out, we were just jumping in to moderate.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
Not trying to show any bias, but keep the conversation on topic and welcoming for all.
Dennis
I'm really sorry to hear that Mike. No one wants to see such a thing happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by rv6mike
We are here to help answer questions and keep the forum a place where people feel free to communicate, within the rules of course. That means the team does jump-in to moderate from time to time.
Ron -Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
A little follow-up, and I apologize for the delay. I've been battling some sort of sickness for a few days.
You brought up a good question based off the language on the matrix. Again, a good learning for us how people read and absorb the policy. We always strive to make things as clear as we can, but having this sort of feedback is helpful.
I have confirmed with our staff that a monthly chapter meeting WOULD NOT be considered a youth-oriented event. In that case, you would not need a waiver signed by their parents.
Your question about local high school students dropping in meets similar criteria. You are not hosting a specific youth-oriented event, so a waiver wouldn't be needed. That said, I'm sure any kids on a field trip may have signed something at their school already.
Hope that helps.
Dennis
I understand your frustration, I do. Personally, I am a big believer in truth and transparency. I would hope that we could agree it wouldn't be realistic to involve the entire membership on this issue. As I shared earlier, we did involve 10-12 chapters. We could debate the merits of including more or less, the point of my response was just to address inaccuracies – primarily that our membership wasn't involved at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by cub builder
Speaking as just a member, and not an employee, I really hope we don't loose your involvement in such a meaningful program. I've been on a 30-year journey to become a pilot because I didn't have such a program, a mentor, or such support when I was younger. I think the infrastructure EAA now has in place would have helped me become a pilot much sooner.
What might be lost in this thread is the positive response we have had to the policy. EAA is trying to protect children, but also protect our pilots, volunteers, chapters, and the organization from a lawsuit.
So I do hope you reconsider, it would be a shame to lose someone as passionate as you are.
Dennis
Thanks much. Key phrase is "specific youth-oriented event", then. I anticipate this clarification will be added to the next policy update.Quote:
Originally Posted by djenders
Ron Wanttaja
You may have not seen my follow-up to Ron's question. Your fly-ins, as I understand it here, are not specifically youth-oriented events or activities. So as the policy is written, you wouldn't need waivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by vettdvr
More simply said, if an event is intended for kids it needs to follow the YPP, if the event is intended for adults you do not.
Dennis
You are welcome Ron.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
You, and a few others, have asked about answers to lingering questions, clarification, and / or updates to the policy. I feel comfortable sharing that we have met internally to discuss. And as you can tell, we do monitor our inbound channels and this thread for feedback.
While I can't promise a specific date or time that clarification will come, I believe that will happen.
As Bret mentioned much earlier in this thread, we realize the roll-out of this policy could have been better communicated. I agree with him, and I hope all of you see it as a learning opportunity for us. We are human, and are all trying very hard to our best, our best for you, and for the organization. Without our members EAA wouldn't exist.
We've been focused on some of the negative here in the thread, but there has been a lot of positive comments we've received too. I just want you to know we are listening to our membership, and trying our best to protect everyone – including youth, our pilots and volunteers, our chapters, and the organization.
I'll continue to answer questions that I can, or work to get answers for you. I jumped into the thread to provide another voice and help Bret, Glory and others in answering your questions. But I also encourage anyone to call us or send an e-mail throughfeedback@eaa.org.
Thanks for the patience, but also thank you for being passionate members. I mean that.
Dennis
See this is backward, while there is literally next to no if any chance for actual abuse to occur on a YE flight, there IS an opportunity on a fly-in/fly-out, or at a chapter meeting or other event where the actual exposure to actual potential abuse is actually there. A legal-beagle would tear that up in 2 seconds.Quote:
Originally Posted by djenders
PLEASE go back to the drawing board, correctly identify the actual risks and then create the minimally invasive policy that addresses the risk effectively and efficiently - right now it is all wrong.
'Gimp
Rather than totally drop the YE program, I'm not sure why chapters don't just skip the parts of the policy they can't/won't comply with. The online course isn't a problem and, now that the SSN requirement has been eliminated, I don't really object to a background check - I don't have to enter any information that isn't publicly available in any number of other places. If Chapters don't want to or have no way to store records for 30 years, don't. Same with other parts of the policy: make a good faith effort to comply with the spirit of the policy based on local resources and get on with the program. No policy like this will ever satisfy everyone and not everyone will have the resources to completely satisfy all of it. I doubt Chapters are going to be audited on how long they keep their records ...
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by tomkk
If there is an incident and the chapter did not follow the laid out program... Any lawyer will chew you up and spit you out.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomkk
Shyster: So Mr Tom, you are saying that the parent organization has a program in place and your local chapter just decided on its own to ignore the parts of the policy they didn't like? Why is that? To protect the defendant and coverup the wrong doing that you knew was happening?
Your chapter would be toast.
See, I deal with the FAA daily in my real world job. They have us write manuals on how we will do "X". If we deviate from "X" they have us dead to rights. Once an organization has a policy in place, if you want to participate as part of that organization, you had better make a real world effort to completely follow not just the intent (so called "spirit") but also the LETTER of the requirements.
Not by the EAA, but by any lawyer if something happens. And if you don't have those records..... You are already guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomkk
Dennis, your interpretation is NOT what is in the policy. I have read it over and over. It is pretty black and white in most areas. There is no exclusion for "primarily adult" activities. Your explanation is not what the membership is reading, they are reading the policy. See why this is such a mess?Quote:
Originally Posted by djenders
Here is a prime example of what the EAA is afraid of.....
Attachment 5344
This young lady was part of the high school Air Force ROTC and she and another student just completed her first airplane flight. All of the kids are escorted to and from the aircraft by the pilot and a volunteer who also took this picture. All she could talk about was how great the experience was. This is what it is all about. Sorry didn't get a "cross shoulder hug"!
Dennis, could you address the following... How does the chapter ensure ALL that participate in such events have completed the required training and have initiated the background check and have been approved? All pilots and ground helpers must go thru the process. MANY are involved. Will the EAA provide a listing of those vetted on request? Unless done, the chapter is liable, the chapter officers and the board is liable. The YE Coordinator is liable. As I see it, if we are not 100% compliant, all that participate become liable in this area if the unforeseen occurs. The EAA would no longer be liable as the new program requires 100% compliance. Yes, I agree with your previous post, the EAA is somewhat protected. The chapters, not so much so unless there is 100% compliance.
So, I guess now you're arguing that creating all those records and the 30 year retention is necessary? Sorry, I thought you were arguing against them. Do you really believe that anything we've been talking about here is going to stop "Mr. Shyster"? If there's an incident that promulgates Mr. Shyster talking to you at all, you and your Chapter will be toast no matter what records you keep. Your best defense will not lie in anything the national organization does but, rather, being able to demonstrate the precautions you did take to protect the child were reasonable and prudent and hope you have a friendly jury.Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmdive
I am just providing feedback from our own team and council that wrote the policy. I understand what you are saying though, and it is completely fair to ask for clarification.Quote:
Originally Posted by combahee
Quote:
Originally Posted by djenders
Dennis, clarification should be in the policy not expecting you to answer here on a forum most never see. Thanks though!
Marty -Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Santic
I'll work on confirming for you. But as the policy is written, you only need to ensure that those listed in the Youth Protection Policy have completed the required training. I believe we can / will provide a list to chapters of who has been vetted. I think the big one to look at is volunteers.
Volunteers who will work with youth in general:
- Four (4) hours or more at any one (1) time; or
- Four (4) times or more in any calendar year; or
- Four (4) times or more with any particular Youth.
- Note that “Volunteers” includes, among others, parents and legal guardians of any youth participant
Totally agree with you! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by combahee
I would expect clarification to come in the next week to ten days, if not sooner.
Until then, I'll work to answer questions. The coming communication(s) should help.
Dennis
If we live life worried about what a lawyer MIGHT do or say in court against us, we should never, ever leave our homes, or invite anyone to enter them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmdive
Arguing against the need. Arguing against the implementation. Arguing against the attitude that the EAA BOD decided to treat members as employees while pointing out the fact that willfully ignoring the rules as laid out by the EAA is a bad idea for legal reasons is not even close to the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomkk
For example, I think it is stupid that I have to have a medical to fly my 7ECA when I can fly a Champ without one. I can bitch about how stupid that rule is and still make damn sure my medical is in date and suggest that before anyone flies a 7ECA that they have a current medical without being hypocritical.
Any protection is automatically lost as soon as you willing admit to not following the rules you said you were going to follow. Worse, it makes you LOOK guilty to a jury. And as for being able to demonstrate "the precautions you did take to protect the child were reasonable and prudent".... Mr Shyster is simple going to point out that the EAA YE HQ thought that (lets say) record keeping was "reasonable and prudent". But for some reason you decided not to follow the rules laid out, so you simply did not make "reasonable and prudent" effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomkk
You are toast.
So please don't confuse my suggestion that just cherry picking what parts of the program you will follow and will not follow as a bad idea legally with support of the program. Simply put, if you are going to call yourself a "Young Eagle" event. You had better make sure you are following the rules and procedures they put into place. Even if you think they are stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krw920
Isn't that exactly what the EAA just did?
I think you missed the point. If you or your chapter are involved in an issue involving a child enough to be talking to lawyers you're already toast. Doesn't matter what policy National has or whether you dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's regarding that policy. Following "the letter" of the requirements isn't going to get us off the hook if an incident happens. The best we can hope for is to avoid an incident. Policies like this are supposed to help us do that but the implementation of that here isn't the best I've seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmdive
Thinking from first principles, why would a training requirement be useful? This is kind of like the box you have to check when entering the U.S. whether you are intending to commit terrorist acts, yes or no. Does anyone actually think that someone who really abuses children does it out of ignorance and will realize the error of their ways by taking a web training class?
If the training was about spotting what to look for to spot potential abuse, that would be one thing. But it doesn't sound like that's the case.
Just an IDEA. Less offending might/would be a short training session (could be done via an EAA video, the EAA is getting real good with the "Hints for Homebuilders" series). The EAA would know who watched the video by asking a few questions at the end of the video. Very, very similar to the sex offender training sessions offered in the industry. And a requirement for the chapter to simply check the state sex offender database (available to anyone via the internet). Hard to believe the background check would be any more thorough. (Hope the EAA asked the outside firm what they are paying for.) The cost to the EAA..... minimal!
Just becasue a lawyer gets invovled does not immediately mean the your chapter or the EAA is toast. There is much investigation, interviews and paper work to be done before any constructive or destructive action takes place. Lawyers do not make the decision as to whether a party is guilty or innocent. There are even some lawyers out there that are nice people.
What kind of protection policy will EAA develop if a parent feels they were improperly touched during a Young Eagle event or at a chapter meeting. That would be the APP. Will it run on your iPhone?
Jack Pelton commented, "The reality is that we have had two close calls over the past 18 months that could have impacted hundreds of youth." He did not explain how the hundreds of youth would have been impacted. It seems it is implied but that is the same as, "ASSUME." Over 25 years of Young Eagles and there have been two close calls. How close were they? Were the principals in those events doing something right to make amends for their other wrong doings? Would they have molested a Young Eagle that they had given a ride to? In one case we will never know.
How many child molesters have flown Young Eagles or have given rides to youth outside of the program over the history of the program? If there had been an incident the EAA, the local chapter and the Young Eagles program would have been the center of attention of the media. In Minnesota the person charged was NOT a member of the local chapter. He was an EAA member. There was no prior record of any inappropriate activity until he was charged. He had been molesting children for some time. A background check would NOT have revealed his activities.
I believe that Mr. Pelton's comment points out the futility of the Youth Protection Program. It is locking the stable after the horse is gone. Does anyone know how or why the horse left? The Program is a knee jerk reaction to an almost happened incident. If you have a near miss, what ever that really is, do you stop and look for someone to sue? Do you call an attorney?
The program is poorly written, confusing, even contradictory and in many situations can not be followed. Far more than ten or twelve chapters must be consulted for their input and their particular situation. Any program that requires a matrix to determine the requirements is far too complex to be applied in a real life situation.
As to whether a Young Eagle volunteer is an employee or not, Black’s Law Dictionary defines “employee” as “a person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, where the employer has the power or right to control and direct the employee in the material details of how the work is to be performed.”This is from http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/01/art1full.pdf. Read the piece for more information about the wage and hour law and providing benefits for contract employees.
My nickel's worth. You will be billed.
Nope, I think you missed it. If there is an incident, the *individual* is toast no doubt. If the chapter has all the required paperwork per the EAA, they stand a chance of surviving. If they don't, toast. The EAA is protected because they will just claim the chapter was stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomkk
The chapter has zero chance of survival if they willingly ignore the requirements.
You may claim otherwise..... But the fact is that no matter how small the chance you want to claim the chapter has.... Ignoring the requirements equals no chance.
Our chapter unfortunately suffered the first accident and death of Young Eagles during a rally a number of years back.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomkk
You don't know HOW many times we blessed ourselves that we followed the rules to the letter.
If you're going to fly kids, great! If you're going to fly kids as EAA or under the Young Eagles aegis, please follow the rules. Let's get the rules changed, if we can, but otherwise, let's play the cards we're dealt.
Ron Wanttaja
So that's another aspect to this whole debacle that hasn't been addressed by EAA, as far as I can see.Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmdive
Suppose an incident *is* alleged, and the parents sue EAA and the local chapter and the members individually. What protection in the form of legal defense will EAA provide to the chapter and the members/volunteers? For how long? Will they pay any judgements against the chapter or the individuals? What about appeals? In other words, are the chapter and the individual members fully indemnified/covered for all losses/judgements against them?
Well now, that's the problem. Lots of people on here have presented reasonable alternatives in an attempt to make this a better and more successful program. Near as I can tell, the EAA isn't interested in listening beyond attempting to clarify their poorly written program. They have successfully diverted peoples attention from their utterly useless background checks, which seems to be the major hang up for many of us. Sorry. The EAA I spent the last few decades helping to build isn't the one that demands I prove myself not to be a criminal in order to continue to serve them for free.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
-Cub Builder
That was very unfortunate. It had to have been a very sad day for everyone involved. It was nothing at all like the "close calls" that Jack Pelton mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
Which rules were you following or, which FAA regulations were you following?
My point is that the EAA's rules do not have the force of law. If the lawyers were bent on extracting a pound of flesh from a pilot or a chapter they will poke all kinds of holes in the EAA rules. It is far more difficult to find loop holes in laws and regulations. This is especially true if there is case law that either supports or opposes the premise of a law or regulation. Some of the regulations and laws were written with some thought given to the impact they will have and whether they are enforceable.
Lyle
By "rules," I meant the rules for the Young Eagles program. We of course followed FAA regs. We did verify that the pilot met the YE requirements and the passengers were properly registered as YEs, with their parents' permission, etc. This made things a lot easier for EAA in regards to the legal aspects. It was a sad situation, indeed, but it was settled with a minimum of rancor.Quote:
Originally Posted by lyleapgmc
Ron Wanttaja
I got the impression the "close calls" Pelton mentioned were youth-protection sort of instances, like the case that Mark van Wyk found.Quote:
Originally Posted by lyleapgmc
Ron Wanttaja
Just read the latest update from Jack Pelton on the YPP. So now after all this they are going to split the program into 3 sections, chapter activities, Airventure and YE flights.
Maybe, just maybe EAA is getting the message that this whole deal is a mess?
Mr. Pelton, with all due respect, pull the program, fix it, get proper input and then only then put it out. Your employee here Dennis is doing an admiral job trying to get interpretations for us, however he shouldn't have to. The policy should be self explanatory even for us dumbed down pilots. In addition as long as there is a requirement for a mandatory background check it's a no deal. I can speak not only for myself but also all the pilots in my chapter and numerous others.
So maybe you think this will blow over, guess again. We were insulted by the original roll out, see no benefit to us or our chapter, and you are asking us, the ones that really are the backbone of the YE program to submit to all this.
It's not that we don't want to protect kids, we do. We could probably use some education to know what to look for and how to help prevent abuse, the video works well here. But the other aspects of the program just don't and can't work.
Well stated Combahee.Quote:
Originally Posted by combahee
I just read the same. The last paragraph was the same old blather about how background checks are the answer "'cause everyone else does it", when it actually provides little to no protection for children. The last paragraph pretty much says it all. The EAA management is going to stick with this stillborn mess. So the EAA is happy with writing off the the YE programs from the small chapters. So be it.
It seems EAA HQ is only interested in listening to those that agree with them. We certainly wouldn't want to apply a little common sense and do something that everyone else isn't doing.
-Cub Builder