First Sergeant Diamond...?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Then we get to do another one (or dozen) of these topics!

[lordmonar]

How can this NOT be policy?  All regulations and manuals are based on policy per the CAP Constitution...

I suspect this is just a semantic difference, then.  But surely you do not think that the BoG is required to specifically consider each of the several hundred CAP insignia, badges, devices, ribbons, and patches as matters of "policy," do you?

From where we sit, at least, policy is "CAP members should wear uniforms when performing duties" and not "We declare as a matter of policy that members can wear the following four different kinds of tie bars: CAP Crest, Air Force coat of arms, grade, or Hap Arnold device.  And these four only.  And they must be centered the knot and bottom of tie.  So it is written, so shall it be done (on USAF-style uniforms.)"

I suppose there will always be some grey area when we start trying to draw the line about where BoG level policies begin and end.

But cadet first sergeant diamonds are nowhere near that theoretical grey area. 

Hence the comment about being "down in the weeds."

+1  This has always been the problem with the NB as it was run for so long.  The CAP-USAF reps I talked to always brought up that they thought it was silly that the NB had to consider each and every little change to the regulations, manuals, pamplets, SQTR, etc....instead of doing the job of running their wings/regions.

Yes it is currently against 39-1....curt said so in his policy memo.  He also said it would be fixed in the next 39-1.....so take this as an ICL to 39-1 until it is published in 39-1.

And as a BTW.....the USAF did the same thing with their uniform regs since forever!  And they too are not shy about making their feelings known about uniform issues.....and since they have not said anything about it for the last 20 years or so.....I think we call all agree that we are good and press on.

If you really, really, really feel that this is wrong.....feel free to contact the National Commander and/or Bog and IG as is your right and duty.  Have fun!

[JoeTomasone]

Joe.....you can scream at the wind all you want.

The National Director of the CP says it is okay....it is not up to you or me to say "no you can't do that" at least not here.

Well, it's not like I expect anything to get changed by ranting here on CT OR by taking it up the CoC.   Just venting, mostly.  All I want is NHQ to follow the regulations that are binding on them and that they write.. Too much to ask?

  If you have doubts about whether he has the authority to stat said policy....take it to the national commander....or the BoG.....but when a member of the BoG says "we don't care" I think you aught to just call this one a loss and wait for the new 39-1 to come out.

No doubt about it - he doesn't have the authority, nor does the National Commander.  The Board does.   

Obviously they can't debate every little point of every single regulation, but that's why they have committees to hash this stuff out and make proposals for the Board to approve/disapprove.  When the Board does so, it becomes policy, which then should be codified into regulations.   Do I expect the Board to debate the Diamond?   No.  Do I expect that when they accept a written recommendation from a committee that DID hash it out that NHQ codifies it properly?  Yeah, I kinda do.   Why should we at the lower echelons be held to a higher standard than the NHQ folks?

[JoeTomasone]

Yes it is currently against 39-1....curt said so in his policy memo.  He also said it would be fixed in the next 39-1.....so take this as an ICL to 39-1 until it is published in 39-1.

Except that you can't do that....  Oh, forget it.  Now I remember why I took a break from CT.

[Ned]

One last note:

One of the major reasons for governance reform was the realization that it was clearly impractical to have a policy-making body word-smith individual regulations.  The NB had difficulty with this.  And in all fairness, the BoG probably wouldn't be much better at it.

So we created a system whereby the National Commander will issue and maintain regulations, manuals, and other guidance that supports policy established by the BoG or other authorities.  The BoG will not routinely review and approve each and every regulation or change.  Indeed, we hope never to see them unless there is a problem. 

As a practical matter, the National Commander will routinely use the staff and subordiinate commanders to draft and vet proposed regulations and changes.  When necessary, Gen Carr can refer matters to the CSAG for their advice.  But that's pretty much it.  Staff recommends, and if appropriate, Gen Carr will sign the regulation into effect.

The BoG has the authority to direct the National Commander to enact, rescind, or modify particular regulations when necessary.

So if it turns out that a majority of the BoG believes that the dreaded cadet first sergeant diamond is somehow a violation of existing policy, we will figure out a way to change it.  But as I mentioned, that is extremely unlikely.

[a2capt]

What happened to the draft periods for feedback/proposals on all these recent things?

[LGM30GMCC]

CAPR 5-4 2 c. National Headquarters (NHQ) staff, which includes both paid and unpaid (volunteer)
personnel, shall act on behalf of the National Commander, who is responsible for the adoption
and maintenance of CAP regulations and manuals.  The NHQ staff shall incorporate all policies,
or changes to existing policies, into drafts of CAP regulations, manuals or revisions thereof

There is no requirement as to when this needs to be done.

A2Capt, there is no requirement for them to give a draft period for feedback/proposals. NHQ can now just DO these types of things. Folks may not like that, but it makes sense and since it's easier to fix issues if one comes up, they can do that to.

Joe, the CAP/CC CAN set policy. It needs to get into a regulation, but there isn't a time line for doing so. It isn't the best way to do it with a policy letter like this one, but it is allowable. In many ways CAP has become a lot more like active duty where the word of the commander is law. He has empowered his staff, that's awesome. If they get out of line I have no doubt he'll snap 'em back but I also doubt it will come to that.

This is definitely a different era for a lot of folks in CAP. In may ways it harkens back to the days pre-national board and all that jazz. I don't know why folks have such a difficult time understanding that we now have commanders that can command and lead their appropriate level organizations. There are checks and balances in place to prevent abuse of it, and I have no doubt if the CAP/CC starts going hog-wild the BoG will ensure that is taken under control.

[Eclipse]

It isn't the best way to do it with a policy letter like this one, but it is allowable.

Cite please.

[Pylon]

No doubt about it - he doesn't have the authority, nor does the National Commander.  The Board does.   

Obviously they can't debate every little point of every single regulation, but that's why they have committees to hash this stuff out and make proposals for the Board to approve/disapprove.  When the Board does so, it becomes policy, which then should be codified into regulations.   Do I expect the Board to debate the Diamond?   No.  Do I expect that when they accept a written recommendation from a committee that DID hash it out that NHQ codifies it properly?  Yeah, I kinda do.   Why should we at the lower echelons be held to a higher standard than the NHQ folks?

Joe, we've been debating this in circles.  The BoG has the authority over everything in CAP.  Under the new governance structure, the BoG has --completely within their rights to do so-- delegated the authority to do much of this routine regulation updating to the National Commander.  Under the new governance structure, approved and implemented by the BoG, the National Commander can make changes to these regulations if, when, and whenever he or she sees fit to do so.  He does not need board approval to make each of these changes and a member of the BoG has already visited this thread and tried to explain that.  I can't think of anybody more authoritative to have clarified that.  It's cut and dry clear.

[Eclipse]

^ I agree 100%, in which case this should have been a memo written and signed "for the commander", which then invokes a delegated authority.

[lordmonar]

^ I agree 100%, in which case this should have been a memo written and signed "for the commander", which then invokes a delegated authority.

No....by appointing someone to a the position you delegate their authority.  You don't sign "for the commander" anymore unless the regulation specifcally calls for "commander's signature" on the form/letter/what ever.

[Eclipse]

^ Nope, but a common misconception.

A staff officer may not make or change policy, only administer current programs.

[lordmonar]

^ Nope, but a common misconception.

A staff officer may not make or change policy, only administer current programs.

I don't know what organisation you are in.....but really?

[RogueLeader]

^ Nope, but a common misconception.

A staff officer may not make or change policy, only administer current programs.

WIWAD in the Safety Office.  I helped write the Brigade Safety/OSHA/Fire Marshall SOPs.  The Brigade Commander just signed it.

Also, I wrote the Company Safety/OSHA/Fire SOP's.  My Company Commander didn't bother reading it, because I wrote it.  (Not sure it was the wisest thing, but it made my head swell a bit.)

[edit]
Oh, this was as a PFC.

[Eclipse]

^ Nope, but a common misconception.

A staff officer may not make or change policy, only administer current programs.

I don't know what organisation you are in.....but really?

Yes, really.  And seriously, especially in a CAP context, you don't want it any other way.

Unless you're suggesting that random staffers can direct action on their own whim?

Staff officers are supposed to be subject matter experts in their respective area of assignment, administer the programs
as they exist, and provide input and advice to commanders, the only ones with actual authority.

Certainly they routinely draft documents, provide process guidance, and in some cases are formally delegated actual authority (as was the case
a few years back in CAWG), but they certainly can't change things codified by regulation on their whim, nor direct anyone to to any action.

WIWAD in the Safety Office.  I helped write the Brigade Safety/OSHA/Fire Marshall SOPs.  The Brigade Commander just signed it.

Yes, you helped, however it does not become enforceble until it has the Commander's signature on it.

[SamFranklin]

And no offense to our remarkable cadets or to be too blunt but lets get a bit of perspective here.... We are talking about a 1 sq cm piece of plastic that a teenager will wear on their shirt. Really folks this is no big deal. Breathe.

Just read what the HQ guy wrote. He called it a "very minor matter" and thanks people for their cooperation. 98% of CAP is probably just fine with that and are patiently waiting for 39-1 but at Captalk you'd think someone just revoked the Magna Carta.

Perspective.

[lordmonar]

^ Nope, but a common misconception.

A staff officer may not make or change policy, only administer current programs.

I don't know what organisation you are in.....but really?

Yes, really.  And seriously, especially in a CAP context, you don't want it any other way.

Unless you're suggesting that random staffers can direct action on their own whim?

Staff officers are supposed to be subject matter experts in their respective area of assignment, administer the programs
as they exist, and provide input and advice to commanders, the only ones with actual authority.

Certainly they routinely draft documents, provide process guidance, and in some cases are formally delegated actual authority (as was the case
a few years back in CAWG), but they certainly can't change things codified by regulation on their whim, nor direct anyone to to any action.

WIWAD in the Safety Office.  I helped write the Brigade Safety/OSHA/Fire Marshall SOPs.  The Brigade Commander just signed it.

Yes, you helped, however it does not become enforceble until it has the Commander's signature on it.

First things.....they are NOT random staffers....they are appointed by the commander to do their job.   Deputy Commander of Cadets....it is his job to issue policy with-in the scope of his authority.  Sure he can't tell ops how to do things....but withing the cadet program he is god answerable only to the commander.

So that is what is going on here.  Curt is the Director of Cadet Programs....he clarified a point about CADET uniforms.....it is policy...not FOR THE COMMANDER but his policy.

And Eclipse....don't be telling us military and ex-military types how the military is run.  It is getting kind of old....in my 22 years on AD and the last six working contractor for the military....I have seen "for the commander" maybe three or four times.....and that was very specific situations.

[Eclipse]

So that is what is going on here.  Curt is the Director of Cadet Programs....he clarified a point about CADET uniforms.....it is policy...not FOR THE COMMANDER but his policy.

And Eclipse....don't be telling us military and ex-military types how the military is run.  It is getting kind of old....in my 22 years on AD and the last six working contractor for the military....I have seen "for the commander" maybe three or four times.....and that was very specific situations.

Staff Members do not make policy, they recommend things for the approval of a commander.  Anything they do is either "for" the commander because the commander was unable to send his own memo, or needs a commander's approval before it is enforceable, unless a commander has formally delegated and published authority to a respective staffer.

Period.

PM Sent on the other nonsense.

[LGM30GMCC]

So that is what is going on here.  Curt is the Director of Cadet Programs....he clarified a point about CADET uniforms.....it is policy...not FOR THE COMMANDER but his policy.

And Eclipse....don't be telling us military and ex-military types how the military is run.  It is getting kind of old....in my 22 years on AD and the last six working contractor for the military....I have seen "for the commander" maybe three or four times.....and that was very specific situations.

Staff Members do not make policy, they recommend things for the approval of a commander.  Anything they do is either "for" the commander because the commander was unable to send his own memo, or needs a commander's approval before it is enforceable, unless a commander has formally delegated and published authority to a respective staffer.

Period.

PM Sent on the other nonsense.

That is your view of how CAP functions, I understand this. To a limited degree I can understand how one could interpret this being how authority works in the military.

However, EFFECTIVELY, staff officers routinely set policy. It is not signed by the commander, how much direct knowledge of the staff-accomplished policies commanders have is up for some debate. I can tell you there are many regulations in 20th AF that come from the A-staff with A-staff directorate signatures, not 20th/CC signatures. I guess I should ignore these as illegal orders, however doing so would certainly be detrimental to my career to say the very least.

I understand you don't like this idea, especially in CAP. However, I feel it is definitely a more efficient and effective way of carrying out the day-to-day operation of an organization that numbers in the tens of thousands. It does mean a high level of trust must be given to those staffers because the commander is still ultimately held responsible for the decisions of the staffers. However, it does allow the commander to focus on higher/strategic vision. This is an area CAP has miserably failed at over the years when we had our wing commanders haggling and fighting for hours over the wording of regulations.

Ideally we will see much more efficient changes to our regulations while still maintaining the best interests of the folks in the field. This is one reason cross-flow of communication among staffers is even more important. The non-command relationships are one of the best ways for these types of concerns to be raised and brought eventually to commanders if necessary.

[Eclipse]

However, EFFECTIVELY, staff officers routinely set policy. It is not signed by the commander, how much direct knowledge of the staff-accomplished policies commanders have is up for some debate.

Thank you for adding clarity to my point.

Lots of people up and down have effective authority, and that's the problem.  Further, citing that it is routine that commanders are unaware
or apathetic about what their staffers are doing makes the point even more.

An example.

A wing-level staff ES Officer who decides that some members are not "worthy" of being SETs until they have had two years of active participation, even though they have been properly approved by the command chain.   Certainly he could recommend things in this regard, but he has no authority to implement or direct based on his opinion unless it is approved by a commander.

But this ESO has the keys to the kingdom, he's the final click for most approvals, so that puts him in effective authority of this situation, and until
someone challenges him, no one knows.  "Effective authority" "authority"

Radar O'Reilly was in "effective authority" over the whole camp, that doesn't give him actual authority.  Maybe this isn't perceived to be a problem in the military, but it is an real, objective issue in CAP, and causes plenty of issues every year, including more then a few good people leaving the organization.