Inspector General Specialty Track

[Private Investigator]

We don't need professional investigators as IG's.

So for example if you was in the "Penn State" situation would you look the other way?

[Private Investigator]

Like every other area in CAP the program is supposed to be a lot of OJT. I my case I inherited an abandoned program with an almost empty file cabinet. Part of my plan is to recruit an Asst IG so that I can move on later and leave a proper replacement. For now I'll lean on my Legal Officer, Region IG and some very experienced IG's in nearby wings.

Phil, if nobody said it, 'thank you'. I inherited a empty chair and in three years had the best IG program in the Region, JMHO. 

IG is a necessary assignment in CAP. If CAP did not have IGs we will have all sorts of scandals like the boy scouts, girl scouts, little league et al.

[davidsinn]

We don't need professional investigators as IG's.

So for example if you was in the "Penn State" situation would you look the other way?

We don't need professional investigators to know what the regs say; suspend and call the cops. It is not our place to do police work.

Like every other area in CAP the program is supposed to be a lot of OJT. I my case I inherited an abandoned program with an almost empty file cabinet. Part of my plan is to recruit an Asst IG so that I can move on later and leave a proper replacement. For now I'll lean on my Legal Officer, Region IG and some very experienced IG's in nearby wings.

Phil, if nobody said it, 'thank you'. I inherited a empty chair and in three years had the best IG program in the Region, JMHO. 

IG is a necessary assignment in CAP. If CAP did not have IGs we will have all sorts of scandals like the boy scouts, girl scouts, little league et al.

We have those scandals now. I read about them at least once a quarter.

[Eclipse]

IG is a necessary assignment in CAP. If CAP did not have IGs we will have all sorts of scandals like the boy scouts, girl scouts, little league et al.

Outstanding circular reasoning.

[Hardshell Clam]

What I find amusing is that anyone would argue against an entity who's job it is to find fraud, waste and abuse within their own organization.

The army MP's have the moto: "Of the troops, for the troops" and I feel that it is better to have a system, made of of our own, to assist in the prevention of abuse. Sure it's going to be "IG light" primary because they are volunteers, just like the rest of the CAP in all specialty tracks.

Some of us bring a lot of experience to the table and some not as much but both are both just as valuable in all tracks. And no, taking the IG tech course does not make you into an IG ace but only the beginning. Most anyone can take the course, but only the actual IG determines who will perform IG duties.

I strongly feel that the IG program, even with its faults, is a necessary program and this belief is also held by the corporation, the USAF and most CAP members.

[johnnyb47]

What I find amusing is that anyone would argue against an entity who's job it is to find fraud, waste and abuse within their own organization.

The army MP's have the moto: "Of the troops, for the troops" and I feel that it is better to have a system, made of of our own, to assist in the prevention of abuse. Sure it's going to be "IG light" primary because they are volunteers, just like the rest of the CAP in all specialty tracks.

Some of us bring a lot of experience to the table and some not as much but both are both just as valuable in all tracks. And no, taking the IG tech course does not make you into an IG ace but only the beginning. Most anyone can take the course, but only the actual IG determines who will perform IG duties.

I strongly feel that the IG program, even with its faults, is a necessary program and this belief is also held by the corporation, the USAF and most CAP members.

No flaming or nit-picking intended. Actually quite the opposite;
I don't see anyone claiming IG shouldn't exist.
I DO see a lot of people saying that we don't need professional investigator's as IG's which I don't think was meant to suggest that a professional investigator shouldn't take the IG track... just that it isn't and shouldn't need to be a prerequisite.
I tend to agree with that line of thinking as it's my understanding that the CAP encourages people to learn and grow in areas of which they have no prior professional experience.  Line Workers as IT officers because they like tinkering with websites, Dr.'s as Cadet Programs Officers because they enjoy working with children, Average everyday people as GTM because they want to help people, etc. If a geek like myself can get involved with SAR operations (our bread and butter) then I believe anyone who wants to give IG a shot should be given the same chance.
Experience is a plus not a neccessity.

Of course I may have missed a post or two though I tried to reread the entire thread. Feel free to correct me if I did.

[Eclipse]

What I find amusing is that anyone would argue against an entity who's job it is to find fraud, waste and abuse within their own organization.

Who's arguing against anything?

The IG's role is very clear - investigation after the fact.  Period.

They do not prevent anything from occurring, they simply ask questions based on command directive to attempt to determine respective facts, which then allow a commander to take action as he deems necessary.

[Hardshell Clam]

What I find amusing is that anyone would argue against an entity who's job it is to find fraud, waste and abuse within their own organization.

Who's arguing against anything?

The IG's role is very clear - investigation after the fact.  Period.

They do not prevent anything from occurring, they simply ask questions based on command directive to attempt to determine respective facts, which then allow a commander to take action as he deems necessary.

One word/thought taken out of context and spun negativity.

You also argue "that "lawyers, police officers, and related disciplines may have a "duty to report" things that takes the entire situation out of a CAP, Inc's hand and blow them well out of proportion... We don't need professional investigators as IG's" 

Lastly, one could argue that in accordance with the IG mission statement that the IG has a PROactive as well a REactive misssion.

MISSION STATEMENT

    The purpose of the Civil Air Patrol Inspector General System is, in part, to create an independent and objective system that:

       1. Resolves problems affecting the Civil Air Patrol mission promptly and objectively.
       2. Creates an atmosphere of trust in which issues can be objectively and fully resolved without retaliation or the fear of reprisal.           
       3. Ensures the existence of responsive complaint and inspection programs characterized by objectivity, integrity, and impartiality.
       4. Ensures the concerns of Civil Air Patrol members and the best interests of the Civil Air Patrol are addressed through objective fact-finding.
       5. Educates Civil Air Patrol members and commanders regarding the privileges of and protection for those contacting an inspector general.
       6. Ensures inspectors general, inspector general staff members, and investigating officers are trained to conduct thorough, unbiased investigations and inspections based on fair and objective fact-finding.

[Private Investigator]

They do not prevent anything from occurring, they simply ask questions based on command directive to attempt to determine respective facts, which then allow a commander to take action as he deems necessary.

I disagree and lets leave it at that.

[Spaceman3750]

They do not prevent anything from occurring, they simply ask questions based on command directive to attempt to determine respective facts, which then allow a commander to take action as he deems necessary.

I disagree and lets leave it at that.

1-4 of the IG program's goals are reactive in nature - Resolve issues, make it so that people trust you to tell you their issues, implement a complaint and inspection program, address concerns through fact finding - each of those are predicated on someone having a problem before hand. The final two are simply IG education.

How can you possibly say that the IG is proactive when the entire mission statement is about dealing with things after they happen?

[Hardshell Clam]

They do not prevent anything from occurring, they simply ask questions based on command directive to attempt to determine respective facts, which then allow a commander to take action as he deems necessary.

I disagree and lets leave it at that.

1-4 of the IG program's goals are reactive in nature - Resolve issues, make it so that people trust you to tell you their issues, implement a complaint and inspection program, address concerns through fact finding - each of those are predicated on someone having a problem before hand. The final two are simply IG education.

How can you possibly say that the IG is proactive when the entire mission statement is about dealing with things after they happen?

One might argue that numbers "5 & 6" within the mission statement are proactive so as to educate to prevent future issues.

[Spaceman3750]

They do not prevent anything from occurring, they simply ask questions based on command directive to attempt to determine respective facts, which then allow a commander to take action as he deems necessary.

I disagree and lets leave it at that.

1-4 of the IG program's goals are reactive in nature - Resolve issues, make it so that people trust you to tell you their issues, implement a complaint and inspection program, address concerns through fact finding - each of those are predicated on someone having a problem before hand. The final two are simply IG education.

How can you possibly say that the IG is proactive when the entire mission statement is about dealing with things after they happen?

One might argue that numbers "5 & 6" within the mission statement are proactive so as to educate to prevent future issues.

Educating members on how to contact the IG? Training IGs? While those aren't reactive to any specific incident, they are training on how to respond to an incident, not providing education on preventing the incident to begin with.

[Hardshell Clam]

They do not prevent anything from occurring, they simply ask questions based on command directive to attempt to determine respective facts, which then allow a commander to take action as he deems necessary.

I disagree and lets leave it at that.

1-4 of the IG program's goals are reactive in nature - Resolve issues, make it so that people trust you to tell you their issues, implement a complaint and inspection program, address concerns through fact finding - each of those are predicated on someone having a problem before hand. The final two are simply IG education.

How can you possibly say that the IG is proactive when the entire mission statement is about dealing with things after they happen?

One might argue that numbers "5 & 6" within the mission statement are proactive so as to educate to prevent future issues.

Educating members on how to contact the IG? Training IGs? While those aren't reactive to any specific incident, they are training on how to respond to an incident, not providing education on preventing the incident to begin with.

Just to avoid this pointless debate about one (mis)use of a word in a much larger thought, I will withdarw it.

[Ed Bos]

So for example if you was in the "Penn State" situation would you look the other way?

Quick, Everyone! Look at this herring... It's Red!