Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 10:49:37 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 24, 2014, 09:17:37 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 08:09:11 PM
Wait, now the inspector can ask questions...

Yes, they ask the questions on the checklist, nothing more.

SUIs are not, BY DESIGN, an invitation to do a D-Check on a unit.  CAPRs cover a wide swath of operations
that NHQ has no interest in because they are not critical to a unit's operations, safety, or resources.

Compliance in those areas is not the concern of an SUI inspector.

By.

Design.

Yet the regs disagree with you.

So, you seem to think that some regulations are optional.  Aren't you the one always complaining about people treating the program like a menu, yet you believe the regs are a menu.

No, the regs literally agree.

Only your flawed interpretation is at odds.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on November 24, 2014, 11:20:32 PM

Quote from: MacGruff on November 24, 2014, 09:51:01 PM
It took a quick trip to e-services to produce the regulation to show the inspector that his interpretation was 180 degrees off. It must have convinced him though, as we did not get any discrepancies due to this.

We shouldn't have to convince the SUI inspectors that we're following regulations and policies. They should be the ones proving that we're not.

Which is why the new checklists are so specific including indications of exactly where
The information is found and what it is.

There's no second questions allowed here. Ask / answer/ report.
The "why's" are the purview of the commander not the inspector.

Quote from: MacGruff on November 24, 2014, 09:51:01 PM
Another episode also has me questioning how much training the inspectors receive before performing a SUI. The topic was the personnel records. The regulations state that they are maintained by the Admin Officer unless they delegated to the Professional Development Officer. The inspector asked the PDO where he maintains his records. When told that they were maintained by the Admin officer, the inspector asked for the letter of delegation from the PDO to the ADMIN!  It took a quick trip to e-services to produce the regulation to show the inspector that his interpretation was 180 degrees off. It must have convinced him though, as we did not get any discrepancies due to this.

What regulation did you show him that the admin officer maintains the personnel records?  The following regulations says otherwise:

From CAPR 39-2 Civil Air Patrol Membership, Sect B, 1-7 "The unit personnel officer normally maintains personnel records. However, this duty may be delegated to the unit administrative officer, or in the case of senior member records, to the professional development officer, at the discretion of the unit commander. Regardless of who maintains the personnel file, the professional development officer remains responsible for recording professional development training as prescribed in CAPR 50-17.

From CAPP 204 Professional Development Officer Specialty Track Study Guide, Page 11, Maintaining Member Records While the personnel officer normally maintains this record, the PDO is 12 CAPP 204 18 APRIL 2013 responsible for providing the personnel officer with documentation for recording training updates. The unit commander may also elect to have the PDO maintain the Professional Development portion of the record for the personnel officer.

I think there may have been a confusion between "maintain personnel records" (personnel officer) and "record professional development training" (professional development officer).

Quote from: FW on November 24, 2014, 11:16:58 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 06:16:59 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 24, 2014, 05:52:46 PM
No - the inspector is supposed to stay on the list and move on.

The regulations disagree with you.

QuoteCAPR 123-3, 12(f)
(3) The SUI will focus attention on items contained primarily in the published SUI
checklist, but may include, as necessary and determined pertinent to CAP mission
accomplishment by the headquarters staff: CAP Corporate policy and guidance; Air Force, Air
Education and Training Command, Air University, CAP and CAP-USAF directives and
instructions. The requirements found in directives published after the issuance of a SUI checklist
take precedent over the content of the SUI Checklist

The checklists are a guide, they are not the be-all-end-all.

They are, however any other areas to be inspected should come from written policies formulated from wing (or through the wing/cc from above). 

you mean, like something adopted by the National Commander with a title like "CAPR".  That's a written policy from a commander.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 24, 2014, 11:27:47 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 10:49:37 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 24, 2014, 09:17:37 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 08:09:11 PM
Wait, now the inspector can ask questions...

Yes, they ask the questions on the checklist, nothing more.

SUIs are not, BY DESIGN, an invitation to do a D-Check on a unit.  CAPRs cover a wide swath of operations
that NHQ has no interest in because they are not critical to a unit's operations, safety, or resources.

Compliance in those areas is not the concern of an SUI inspector.

By.

Design.

Yet the regs disagree with you.

So, you seem to think that some regulations are optional.  Aren't you the one always complaining about people treating the program like a menu, yet you believe the regs are a menu.

No, the regs literally agree.

Only your flawed interpretation is at odds.

So, my interpretations that no regs are optional is "flawed".  Yeah, right.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 11:41:48 PM
you mean, like something adopted by the National Commander with a title like "CAPR".  That's a written policy from a commander.

Yes, which the same commander has directed be inspected for compliance in a specific and narrow manner.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 11:43:03 PM
So, my interpretations that no regs are optional is "flawed".  Yeah, right.

Your interpretation that "no reg is optional" is correct.

Your interpretation of the inspection process is flawed.  SUI inspectors do not have a mandate to
inspect "every reg".  The have a mandate to inspect the regs picked by NHQ as "important" and indicated on the checklists.

You can't connect the two in this context.

An SUI inspector has no authorization to "start at CAPR 01 and work their way, page-by-page" though CAPR 999, stopping where ever the whim
hits them..." under the guise of being complaint with all regs. Not to go off on some tangential quest because the inspector has
a personal peeve on the issue.

If the IG directorate cared about that info, they'ed ask.  For your example, while internet ops need to be approved, that approval is
not important to the viability of a unit and doesn't rise to an inspectable item.

National primarily cares about the same things the actuaries care about, money, safety, and high-level administrivia.
everything else falls off the page.

Look Jeff....you want to write up people for every reg and manual violation...go ahead.

You are violating the intent and the letter of the SUI program.   You are not making any friends, and you are not making CAP any better.

If during your SUI find some violation of a reg not covered in the SUI guide...by all means write it up and push on.

What Eclipse and I are saying....is that inspectors should not be using the SUI to push outside the scope of the inspection.

The SUI guide does not call to see the 18 month new member PD plan....they should not ask to see it.

As a member of the SUI team, I consider it important to ask appropriate questions and maybe offer some SME suggestions for improvement. I don't have time to go on a fishing expedition or look for trivia so I can throw someone under the bus.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 24, 2014, 05:52:46 PM
No - the inspector is supposed to stay on the list and move on.

Except each inspector also has to give a "Mission Rating" score which involves asking anything appropriate to determine that rating. NHQ has unfortunately provided ZERO guidence on this, so the process to determine a rating is extremely uneven across inspectors.

Using Cadet Programs as an example, since it was mentioned earlier how thin the checklist is for that aspect of CAP, I've run into a number of squadrons who don't have specific and measureable goals. They get this on their SUI:

HHQ-Discrepancy: The unit did not have specific and measureable cadet program goals as required by CAPR 52-16 para 4-2.

That's it. No spankings, no harsh words, just a, "Hey, you're required by regulation to be doing that and it's going to be noted. Someone from wing will follow-up with you to ensure you get those goals done and find out if you need any help writing them."

At least in a perfect world wing would follow-up. A lot of times it's a black hole, but at least the WG/CC is made aware of the issue via the SUI.

There's been a lot of discussion here regarding what the intent of NHQ is. It seems to me that if only the checklist questions were allowed to be asked, there wouldn't need to be a provision for HHQ-Discrepancy to be noted during the SUI.

Where is 4-2 referenced on the checklist?

Quote from: Eclipse on November 25, 2014, 01:45:14 AM
Where is 4-2 referenced on the checklist?

Where is the reg that says you can't deviate from the checklist?

Quote from: JeffDG on November 25, 2014, 02:13:43 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 25, 2014, 01:45:14 AM
Where is 4-2 referenced on the checklist?

Where is the reg that says you can't deviate from the checklist?

Where is the process that says you can and better are supposed to?

You've already provided the verbiage to the contrary:
"(3) The SUI will focus attention on items contained primarily in the published SUI checklist..."

the subsequent verbiage refers to formal directives as determined by HQ staff and others listed, >NOT<
adhoc questions determined by the inspectors.

So, if Wing CC or higher says "ask about IT authorizations..." then ask the question as directed, if you're
just curious, keep it to yourself.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 25, 2014, 03:05:41 AM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 25, 2014, 02:13:43 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 25, 2014, 01:45:14 AM
Where is 4-2 referenced on the checklist?

Where is the reg that says you can't deviate from the checklist?

Where is the process that says you can and better are supposed to?

You've already provided the verbiage to the contrary:
"(3) The SUI will focus attention on items contained primarily in the published SUI checklist..."

the subsequent verbiage refers to formal directives as determined by HQ staff and others listed, >NOT<
adhoc questions determined by the inspectors.

So, if Wing CC or higher says "ask about IT authorizations..." then ask the question as directed, if you're
just curious, keep it to yourself.

You realize that "primarily" does not equal "exclusively".  Regardless of how many times you repeat it, the reg specifically anticipated going off checklist, despite your creative interpretation that it prohibits it.

And if you're in violation of the reg, "Not on the checklist" is not a valid response to a discrepancy finding.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 25, 2014, 04:34:09 AM
You realize that "primarily" does not equal "exclusively".  Regardless of how many times you repeat it, the reg specifically anticipated going off checklist, despite your creative interpretation that it prohibits it.

You realize it says "headquarters staff" right?  Are you on that very specific list of staff offices allowed to make changes to the procedure or list?

Regardless of how many times you ignore it, the reg doesn't allow for inspectors to go "off list".

Quote from: JeffDG on November 25, 2014, 04:34:09 AMAnd if you're in violation of the reg, "Not on the checklist" is not a valid response to a discrepancy finding.

Unless the reg allegedly violated is relevent to the inspection, it's not the inspectors concern.

Where do you get that SUIs are some attempt to fix every problem a unit has?  They aren't.
They are an audit of very specific items NHQ is interested in, and that's all.  Made more clear
by the very specific checklists provided, not to mention the clear and very specific verbiage about
who is allowed to deviate (i.e. HQ staff as indicated only)

I'll grant this, if someone being inspected is dumb enough to start blabbering on about things off list,
the inspector should feel free to note it, but he's got no business making up his own questions.

Thankfully the day is soon coming when the SUIs, like the CIs, will be simple audits done
remotely and there won't be any room or need for "extra".  9/10ths of the information the inspectors need
is, or son will be online - no need for in-face interviews, etc.

I'd say 3 years, tops.  And that's assuming that it takes that long for NHQ to realize that adding some attendance
and activity tracking to eServices, and a few new reports could spit these inspections out automatically
on a quarterly basis, negating the need for SUIs at all.

Been to encampment?  The Encampment admin officer enters the RST and that populates for the members of
each squadron. Bluetooth racing catheters will handle the fluid intake questions, etc., etc.

Quote from: pierson777 on November 24, 2014, 05:43:01 PM
Also, the inspector was very focused on member's that had "none" ratings in specialty tracks.  Many had master ratings in other specialty tracks, but had pretty much abandoned any efforts to progress in the other specialty track.  This usually occurred when a member was assigned a duty and spec track based on the needs of the unit at the time, but it didn't last for whatever reason.  This wasn't an item on the SUI, so why was it a concern?  Additionally, I just discovered that there is a "delete" function in the Specialty Track Application.  It allows the user to delete a specialty track with a "none" rating.  I'm not sure if this is new, but I never noticed it before nor did I see any announcements about it.

None ratings in a specialty track of a member that has been enrolled in a position for a significant amount of time merit an AREA OF CONCERN on the SUI Report.   No need to answer, but to just bring it to the member, CC and Wing CC's attention.   It is beneficial for everyone to attempt to progress through the track, not only to learn the position, but remain updated.    Several specialty tracks have been significantly updated recently.   

This would also apply to a 10+ year staff officer who achieved a Technician rating 8 years ago.  Area of Concern as their should be some additional progression.

Not going outside of my role or new checklist, but just giving them something to think about and it is noted up top with the assigned date and speciality track rating.

SUIs hurt feeling for everyone involved.

Everyone wants to be perfect in CAP. A good example is when I inspected a Squadron's Safety Program. They had none, but they 'pencil whipped' in their Safety Briefings. I knew they were lying when they had a meeting and a safety briefing on Labor Day. Or when they had one on February 30. One Senior Member mention that never did AE either and the Squadron Commander started problems for that SM where he had to transfer to another SQ. Anyways we had a great Group Commander then and he fired that Squadron Commander.

SUIs? Why not give everyone a "participation trophy" and call it even.     

This is an interesting thread, however it looks like there may seem to be a disconnect between the proper role of the inspector with the process.  The SUI is used as a gauge for commanders.  Inspectors have a specific guide to get the answers.. for the commanders....  Commanders need the information so they can make decisions...

Inspectors perform the functions required by the commanders AND the regulations, policies, guides, etc...

Inspectors are not commanders.

Inspectors do not make stuff up to torment commanders or members...

Inspectors, however need to be able to get the information required without interference or BS.  The process should not be confrontational. 

SUI's should not be a reason for anxiety and undo stress. 

Members' plan of action?  For me, I just sit around and eat popcorn while, every once and awhile, make a comment on CT... :angel:

Quote from: Private Investigator on November 25, 2014, 06:33:56 AM
SUIs hurt feeling for everyone involved.

That can be dealt with by an inspector too...just did one this month where they'd changed the date a report was due from January to October with little fanfare...Wing director didn't even notice the change until someone the week before had started asking questions about it.

I interviewed the person involved.  He was doing everything he could for the program.  But this one report was missing.

In the out-brief with the staff and commander, I mentioned that we had a discrepancy in this area (I think they had a total of 3 really minor discrepancies SUI wide), but then said "OK, switching hats here from inspector to Group Deputy Commander, the Group Commander and I would prefer a unit that was doing all these things you are doing in the program and is missing this piece of paperwork to one that does nothing but has their reports in on time.  This discrepancy is just a paperwork issue that you can fix in no-time flat, and continue with your very successful program."

And for the record, I mention that IT one because I'd bet if you asked units, 90% of them have no clue that they need that approval.  It's an example of a regulation that seems to be optional.

Quote from: pierson777 on November 24, 2014, 11:30:43 PM

Quote from: MacGruff on November 24, 2014, 09:51:01 PM
Another episode also has me questioning how much training the inspectors receive before performing a SUI. The topic was the personnel records. The regulations state that they are maintained by the Admin Officer unless they delegated to the Professional Development Officer. The inspector asked the PDO where he maintains his records. When told that they were maintained by the Admin officer, the inspector asked for the letter of delegation from the PDO to the ADMIN!  It took a quick trip to e-services to produce the regulation to show the inspector that his interpretation was 180 degrees off. It must have convinced him though, as we did not get any discrepancies due to this.

What regulation did you show him that the admin officer maintains the personnel records?  The following regulations says otherwise:

From CAPR 39-2 Civil Air Patrol Membership, Sect B, 1-7 "The unit personnel officer normally maintains personnel records. However, this duty may be delegated to the unit administrative officer, or in the case of senior member records, to the professional development officer, at the discretion of the unit commander. Regardless of who maintains the personnel file, the professional development officer remains responsible for recording professional development training as prescribed in CAPR 50-17.

From CAPP 204 Professional Development Officer Specialty Track Study Guide, Page 11, Maintaining Member Records While the personnel officer normally maintains this record, the PDO is 12 CAPP 204 18 APRIL 2013 responsible for providing the personnel officer with documentation for recording training updates. The unit commander may also elect to have the PDO maintain the Professional Development portion of the record for the personnel officer.

I think there may have been a confusion between "maintain personnel records" (personnel officer) and "record professional development training" (professional development officer).

CAPR 39-2 and the exact paragraph you quoted from. My mistake was in stating that it was the Admin Officer when it states it should be the Personnel officer unless delegated to the Professional Development Officer. In our case, the Admin and Personnel officers are the same person.

My point, of course, was that the inspector thought the Professional Development Officer should be maintaining the records unless they delegated this to the Personnel officer when the reality is the reverse. Again, no big deal as we showed him the regulation and did not get 'dinged' for it. But couple that with our transportation 'debacle' and you can see why some hard feelings can be generated.