PD for SUI - New Member Plan of Action & Spec Track "None" Rating

[pierson777]

My squadron just completed a Subordinate Unit Inspection (SUI) and the inspector for Professional Development (PD) wanted to see some sort of proof that we had an 18-month plan for new members.   He was also concerned that some members had a "none" rating in a specialty track.  I don't really understand why he went down those 'rabbit holes', because they're not even questions for the SUI.  Are inspectors supposed to check only the SUI specific questions or are they given the latitude to create their own agenda and questions during the inspections?  I'm just curious how it's supposed to work.

The new Level I (as of Aug 2013) includes a New Member Plan of Action.  It's sort of like a form but it's not really an official CAP form.  It is something that is completed with the new member when completing the in-residence portion of Level I training.  We don't keep it in the unit records.  He suggested that we should have developed another form or a spreadsheet to "track" and "prove" that we were doing an 18-month plan for new members.  I reminded him that we were given specific guidance from our wing commander that we were not to make up any sort of forms or spreadsheets, etc for use at the unit level.  I told the inspector that the instructor's certification and the commander's approval of Level I training "shows" and "proves" that we were completing the New Member Plan of Action for New Members.  Apparently this wasn't enough.

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.

[Eclipse]

No - the inspector is supposed to stay on the list and move on.

The behavior you indicated is why the lists are so specific as SUIs in some areas were treated like
8-hour root canals by people who didn't understand the question they were asking.

The None ratings were there because an update wold block SLS credit if something wasn't entered.
Obviously a member with a Master in something is not concerned about this issue, and neither should an
inspector.

Time to have a conversation with the next echelon and get references to this removed form the inspection report (not that they could realy be entered
or graded since they don't exist.

[Storm Chaser]

That's correct. Inspectors should not be concerned with anything outside the SUI checklists and applicable regulations and supplements.

[JeffDG]

No - the inspector is supposed to stay on the list and move on.

The regulations disagree with you.

CAPR 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.

[Grumpy]

Our inspectors were concerned that we might have somebody assigned to a duty assignment that didn't correspond with their specialty code.  We simply entered them into training for that specialty. Problem corrected.  People are in training for their specialty and haven't made the Tech level yet.  Gotta start someplace.

The delete button has been there all along.  In this paperless system it makes it easy to remove someone from training who either can't or won't progress.

[Eclipse]

No - the inspector is supposed to stay on the list and move on.

The regulations disagree with you.

CAPR 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.

It says "as necessary".  The example given is not necessary, and not only that, runs counter
to wing policy as well, so this inspector is not only "off-list" but also he is ill-informed.
The NHQ intention is CLEARLY to stay on-list and move things along.

Asking questions such as these are a waste of everyone's time and serve zero purpose, since there
isn't even a way to track or re-mediate them.

It would be one thing if the wing had approved supps or published SOPs regarding the extra questions,
but inspectors are not supposed to just make things up on a whim.  Further, they aren't supposed to
be labor things.  In this case, when a question is off-list, the person being inspected can simply
reply, "that is not a question on the inspection list, and we don't do that 'thing". 

From there the inspector is supposed to move on.  He can note it if he wants, and let a CC handle it as they see fit.

That's the real problem.  IGs don't "fix" anything.  They are fact-finders creating reports for others.

NHQ has seen fit to create a specific list of questions that they feel are what is appropriate to determine if
the parts of the program they care about are being run properly.  it is not an inspectors role to redefine those questions.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Jeff-

Your quote just after what you put in bold "by the Headquarters staff."

I interpret this to mean that if the Wing CC, or Deputy, or other staff decides is important and makes it an issue in advance of the actual inspections via letters, supplements, etc. but will not / cannot be on a whim of the inspector. It is not his authority.

[JeffDG]

Our inspectors were concerned that we might have somebody assigned to a duty assignment that didn't correspond with their specialty code.  We simply entered them into training for that specialty. Problem corrected.  People are in training for their specialty and haven't made the Tech level yet.  Gotta start someplace.

The delete button has been there all along.  In this paperless system it makes it easy to remove someone from training who either can't or won't progress.

A member is required to be enrolled in the PD track for their duty position with two exceptions:
1)  The member has multiple duty positions, they must be enrolled in accord with their "primary" duty position.  Secondary are optional, but encouraged
2)  The member already has a "MASTER" rating.

The regulations nowhere require people to progress in the tracks, simply to be enrolled.

[JeffDG]

Jeff-

Your quote just after what you put in bold "by the Headquarters staff."

I interpret this to mean that if the Wing CC, or Deputy, or other staff decides is important and makes it an issue in advance of the actual inspections via letters, supplements, etc. but will not / cannot be on a whim of the inspector. It is not his authority.

The inspectors can go anywhere in the regulations.  The regs supercede the checklists.

For example, if your unit has a Facebook page, it's is 100% in-bounds for an inspector to ask you to show Wing or higher commander approval for the Internet Operation (CAPR 110-1 11.a).  It's not on the checklist, but it is a regulatory requirement and fair-game.

[JeffDG]

NHQ has seen fit to create a specific list of questions that they feel are what is appropriate to determine if
the parts of the program they care about are being run properly.  it is not an inspectors role to redefine those questions.

NHQ has seen fit to create a manual of regulations, and the SUI program is intended to determine compliance with those regulations.  Anything that is required by the regulations is fair-game for an SUI, as the regulations are supposedly all directive in meaning.

[lordmonar]

My squadron just completed a Subordinate Unit Inspection (SUI) and the inspector for Professional Development (PD) wanted to see some sort of proof that we had an 18-month plan for new members.   He was also concerned that some members had a "none" rating in a specialty track.  I don't really understand why he went down those 'rabbit holes', because they're not even questions for the SUI.  Are inspectors supposed to check only the SUI specific questions or are they given the latitude to create their own agenda and questions during the inspections?  I'm just curious how it's supposed to work.

The new Level I (as of Aug 2013) includes a New Member Plan of Action.  It's sort of like a form but it's not really an official CAP form.  It is something that is completed with the new member when completing the in-residence portion of Level I training.  We don't keep it in the unit records.  He suggested that we should have developed another form or a spreadsheet to "track" and "prove" that we were doing an 18-month plan for new members.  I reminded him that we were given specific guidance from our wing commander that we were not to make up any sort of forms or spreadsheets, etc for use at the unit level.  I told the inspector that the instructor's certification and the commander's approval of Level I training "shows" and "proves" that we were completing the New Member Plan of Action for New Members.  Apparently this wasn't enough.

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.

1.  If it is not on the SUI checklist.....it is NOT on the SUI checklist.....tell him to go pound sand.
2.  In theory....if someone is training up to a new specialty....there really should be a training plan for that person and his trainer to follow.   But not really a requirement as far as I know....and not really an SUI question....as far as I know.  Again....go tell him to pound sand!
3.   Tell him to pound sand.

IG teams going off the reservation is why people hate SUIs.  You get all your ducks in a row and then you get some "inspector" who wants to waste your time with "can you show me your plan" stuff that is not in the SUI guide.  If it is important....they need to up-channel that to NHQ and get it included in the SUI guide.

[/rant]

[Eclipse]

We're going to just have to disagree. NHQ's intent is very clear on this.

My advice, when an inspector asks an off-list question, simply polity decline to answer and suggest he move on.

[lordmonar]

Jeff-

Your quote just after what you put in bold "by the Headquarters staff."

I interpret this to mean that if the Wing CC, or Deputy, or other staff decides is important and makes it an issue in advance of the actual inspections via letters, supplements, etc. but will not / cannot be on a whim of the inspector. It is not his authority.

The inspectors can go anywhere in the regulations.  The regs supercede the checklists.

For example, if your unit has a Facebook page, it's is 100% in-bounds for an inspector to ask you to show Wing or higher commander approval for the Internet Operation (CAPR 110-1 11.a).  It's not on the checklist, but it is a regulatory requirement and fair-game.

Sorry Jeff.....I have to disagree with you.  The inspectors need to stick to the SUI guide.   If it is important enough to check up on during the inspection....it should be in the guide.

[JeffDG]

We're going to just have to disagree. NHQ's intent is very clear on this.

My advice, when an inspector asks an off-list question, simply polity decline to answer and suggest he move on.

And if you do that with me as an inspector, you will receive a discrepancy, because if I'm asking the question it's not a "wouldn't it be nice if you...", it's a regulatory requirement.

So, if I'm interviewing a Commander and he says "We post all these things on our web page for members to be able to review," I am fully within my role as an inspector to review that website for compliance with CAPR 110-1 and report any discrepancies with my report.  If you want that discrepancy expunged, then you need to establish that the regulations don't require it.  CAPR 123-3 is clear that the regulations trump the checklists, so "Not on the checklist" is not a valid reason to remove a discrepancy.

[JeffDG]

Jeff-

Your quote just after what you put in bold "by the Headquarters staff."

I interpret this to mean that if the Wing CC, or Deputy, or other staff decides is important and makes it an issue in advance of the actual inspections via letters, supplements, etc. but will not / cannot be on a whim of the inspector. It is not his authority.

The inspectors can go anywhere in the regulations.  The regs supercede the checklists.

For example, if your unit has a Facebook page, it's is 100% in-bounds for an inspector to ask you to show Wing or higher commander approval for the Internet Operation (CAPR 110-1 11.a).  It's not on the checklist, but it is a regulatory requirement and fair-game.

Sorry Jeff.....I have to disagree with you.  The inspectors need to stick to the SUI guide.   If it is important enough to check up on during the inspection....it should be in the guide.

If it's important enough to do, it's in the regulations.  If it's in the regulations, CAPR 123-3 is clear that in the event of a conflict between the regulations and the checklists, the regulations always win.

[lordmonar]

Jeff-

Your quote just after what you put in bold "by the Headquarters staff."

I interpret this to mean that if the Wing CC, or Deputy, or other staff decides is important and makes it an issue in advance of the actual inspections via letters, supplements, etc. but will not / cannot be on a whim of the inspector. It is not his authority.

The inspectors can go anywhere in the regulations.  The regs supercede the checklists.

For example, if your unit has a Facebook page, it's is 100% in-bounds for an inspector to ask you to show Wing or higher commander approval for the Internet Operation (CAPR 110-1 11.a).  It's not on the checklist, but it is a regulatory requirement and fair-game.

Sorry Jeff.....I have to disagree with you.  The inspectors need to stick to the SUI guide.   If it is important enough to check up on during the inspection....it should be in the guide.

If it's important enough to do, it's in the regulations.  If it's in the regulations, CAPR 123-3 is clear that in the event of a conflict between the regulations and the checklists, the regulations always win.

I'm not saying that....I'm saying that during the SUI inspection is not the time to be emphasis program areas under your jurisdiction.   If the wing PDO wants units to get their act into shape.....he's got plenty of time to communicate that out, make staff assist visits, etc.   BLIND SIDING units during the GRADED SUI is not the time to be doing that.

So....I stand by my suggestion....the SUI team needs to stick to the guide and unit commanders need to stand up to them and tell them to go pound salt.

[JeffDG]

Jeff-

Your quote just after what you put in bold "by the Headquarters staff."

I interpret this to mean that if the Wing CC, or Deputy, or other staff decides is important and makes it an issue in advance of the actual inspections via letters, supplements, etc. but will not / cannot be on a whim of the inspector. It is not his authority.

The inspectors can go anywhere in the regulations.  The regs supercede the checklists.

For example, if your unit has a Facebook page, it's is 100% in-bounds for an inspector to ask you to show Wing or higher commander approval for the Internet Operation (CAPR 110-1 11.a).  It's not on the checklist, but it is a regulatory requirement and fair-game.

Sorry Jeff.....I have to disagree with you.  The inspectors need to stick to the SUI guide.   If it is important enough to check up on during the inspection....it should be in the guide.

If it's important enough to do, it's in the regulations.  If it's in the regulations, CAPR 123-3 is clear that in the event of a conflict between the regulations and the checklists, the regulations always win.

I'm not saying that....I'm saying that during the SUI inspection is not the time to be emphasis program areas under your jurisdiction.   If the wing PDO wants units to get their act into shape.....he's got plenty of time to communicate that out, make staff assist visits, etc.   BLIND SIDING units during the GRADED SUI is not the time to be doing that.

So....I stand by my suggestion....the SUI team needs to stick to the guide and unit commanders need to stand up to them and tell them to go pound salt.

Except the regulations are clear that the checklist are NOT determinative, they are guidelines.  CAP and CAP-USAF directives are specifically listed as other items that can be reviewed, and every CAP regulation is a CAP directive and is fair game.

If an inspector asks about something in the regs, and the Commander tells him to "pound salt", then the inspector should simply write it as a discrepancy and move on.

[lordmonar]

I guess we will agree to disagree on this.

[Eclipse]

We're going to just have to disagree. NHQ's intent is very clear on this.

My advice, when an inspector asks an off-list question, simply polity decline to answer and suggest he move on.

And if you do that with me as an inspector, you will receive a discrepancy, because if I'm asking the question it's not a "wouldn't it be nice if you...", it's a regulatory requirement.

So?

It'll just be removed on the first round of responses as inappropriate.

You going to make up the standard of substantiation and remediation as well?  If you want to provide notes
on something you are concerned about, that's one thing. You can't just make up discrepancies on a whim.
The only things that can be discrepancies are those things which are specifically on the list, and only if they
aren't substantiated in the way indicated.

If it's in the regulations, CAPR 123-3 is clear that in the event of a conflict between the regulations and the checklists, the regulations always win.

That's no the same thing and yo know it.  That is only there for cases where the checklists don't keep up with regulatory
change, which has pretty much been the history of the program for a decade - checklists looking for
things long changed or removed from the actual program.

The above doesn't give an inspector carte blanch to give the staffer a masters exam on whatever he feels like.

[Storm Chaser]

No - the inspector is supposed to stay on the list and move on.

The regulations disagree with you.

CAPR 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.

It says "as necessary".  The example given is not necessary, and not only that, runs counter
to wing policy as well, so this inspector is not only "off-list" but also he is ill-informed.
The NHQ intention is CLEARLY to stay on-list and move things along.

Asking questions such as these are a waste of everyone's time and serve zero purpose, since there
isn't even a way to track or re-mediate them.

It would be one thing if the wing had approved supps or published SOPs regarding the extra questions,
but inspectors are not supposed to just make things up on a whim.  Further, they aren't supposed to
be labor things.  In this case, when a question is off-list, the person being inspected can simply
reply, "that is not a question on the inspection list, and we don't do that 'thing". 

From there the inspector is supposed to move on.  He can note it if he wants, and let a CC handle it as they see fit.

That's the real problem.  IGs don't "fix" anything.  They are fact-finders creating reports for others.

NHQ has seen fit to create a specific list of questions that they feel are what is appropriate to determine if
the parts of the program they care about are being run properly.  it is not an inspectors role to redefine those questions.

I think you bolded the wrong quote from CAPR 123-3. The only things that should/could be inspected outside of the SUI checklist are: "CAP Corporate policy and guidance; Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Air University, CAP and CAP-USAF directives and instructions." None of the items brought up by the OP fall under these. Inspectors cannot make policy and should not be holding units to a standard that's not backed up by regulations, supplements, instructions, or policies.

[Eclipse]

The colon in that sentence is key and being ignored.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

As I like to explain in my presentations about the IG program, we (IGs and associated folks) have to follow the regulations concerning our program jsut like everyone else.

Inspectors General and inspection team members. During IG inspections it is the responsibility of IGs at all levels, as well as members of IG inspection teams, to take immediate action (up to and including stopping operations) to prevent personal injury, damage to equipment or the release of sensitive information should a potential/actual safety issue or security violation be observed. The inspector will promptly notify the respective commander of actions taken.

So the team has the standard responsibility to call "Knock it off" on Safety and the added one for OPSEC (or more specifically INFOSEC)

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.

That opens up a lot of territory. I think it implies that if you're going to cover additional territory you should give notice to the units, but it's not mandated.  The new SUI report has a category of (HHQ - Discrepancy): which would appear to be used in these situations.
Under the old system I sent the RI Wing Squadrons a modified SUI list that included 3 or 4 additional items covering specific NER or RIWG policies. The new worksheets are not so easily modified.

This thread has given me something to think about and I plan to raise some of these issues at my next NER IG Conference Call.

[JeffDG]

We're going to just have to disagree. NHQ's intent is very clear on this.

My advice, when an inspector asks an off-list question, simply polity decline to answer and suggest he move on.

And if you do that with me as an inspector, you will receive a discrepancy, because if I'm asking the question it's not a "wouldn't it be nice if you...", it's a regulatory requirement.

So?

It'll just be removed on the first round of responses as inappropriate.

That would involve you showing that you were in compliance with the regulations.  Which you weren't, so it's entirely appropriate.

You going to make up the standard of substantiation and remediation as well?  If you want to provide notes
on something you are concerned about, that's one thing. You can't just make up discrepancies on a whim.
The only things that can be discrepancies are those things which are specifically on the list, and only if they
aren't substantiated in the way indicated.

"Unit has an internet operation and could not provide any evidence of Wing or higher commander or designee approval IAW CAPR 110-1, para 11.  Unit must seek and receive Wing or higher commander approval for site or cease operations of website to close this discrepancy."  Was that so hard?  The regulation is actually incredibly clear, and that's just one example.

FYI, here's the cited reg:

11. Approval to Conduct CAP Internet Operation.
a. CAP units conducting CAP internet operations (including cap.gov domains) must obtain and
maintain a record of approval from the CAP/CC or applicable region, wing commander or their
designee. The NHQ/CO or designee approves CAPNHQ.gov domain delegations.

Or take the PD one for not being enrolled in the Specialty Track:  "Member assigned as the Communications Officer is not enrolled in the Communications Specialty track IAW CAPR 35-1., para 1b.  Member is not assigned any other duty positions, and does not possess a Master rating qualifying him for any of the exceptions.  To clear this discrepancy, the Communications Officer must be enrolled in the Communications Specialty Track, or removed from the duty position of Communications Officer."

[JeffDG]

The new SUI report has a category of (HHQ - Discrepancy): which would appear to be used in these situations.

Actually, I would put a HHQ discrepancy as something arising out of the SUI but that the unit cannot correct themselves, but need HHQ to cover.  Take for instance a Commander not being assigned to the Command Specialty Track.  Unlike other tracks, members cannot be enrolled in that track below Wing level, so while it should show as a discrepancy under Tab E-1, Question 10, it's a HHQ Discrepancy, particularly if the unit shows evidence of requesting to be enrolled.

And that brings back to the original question...enrollment in specailty tracks IS on the checklists for the Commander to answer for.

Tab E-1, Question 10:
Are all members assigned to an authorized duty position enrolled in the appropriate specialty track?

[JeffDG]

Inspectors General and inspection team members. During IG inspections it is the responsibility of IGs at all levels, as well as members of IG inspection teams, to take immediate action (up to and including stopping operations) to prevent personal injury, damage to equipment or the release of sensitive information should a potential/actual safety issue or security violation be observed. The inspector will promptly notify the respective commander of actions taken.

So the team has the standard responsibility to call "Knock it off" on Safety and the added one for OPSEC (or more specifically INFOSEC)

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.

That opens up a lot of territory. I think it implies that if you're going to cover additional territory you should give notice to the units, but it's not mandated.

On these, I think the difference in standard is quite appropriate.  A safety issue is of immediate importance, and I think it's wholly appropriate that a representative of a higher HQ has the authority to halt an unsafe condition.  As an IT Guy, if I were on an inspection and someone showed me a public web page with member SSNs on it (for example), things would VERY rapidly come to a halt while that was fixed.

But for the vast majority of regulations, writing up a discrepancy puts simply puts the unit on notice and directs them to return to compliance with the regulations, not a massive burden, as the unit is supposed to be in compliance with the regulations in the first place.

There are some other implications of SUI reports.  If you receive a "Marginally Successful" or "Unsuccessful" in Logistics or Communications (as it relates to property management), you go on logistics freeze as a unit.  There's no discretion, the Wing Commander shall impose a property freeze.  So, while IGs and Inspectors are, generally, fact finders and lack authority to impose their will, there are exceptions, and appropriate ones.

[Eclipse]

"Unit has an internet operation and could not provide any evidence of Wing or higher commander or designee approval IAW CAPR 110-1, para 11.  Unit must seek and receive Wing or higher commander approval for site or cease operations of website to close this discrepancy."  Was that so hard?  The regulation is actually incredibly clear, and that's just one example.

Under what auspices do you think you even get to >ask< that question?

You aren't allowed to randomly dig around the regs and ask whatever you feel like.

There's a difference between a follow-up question and something NHQ doesn't intend to be inspected.

In your example, this topic isn't even covered in the SUI, therefore it is not something open to an SUI inspector.

[Eclipse]

There are some other implications of SUI reports.  If you receive a "Marginally Successful" or "Unsuccessful" in Logistics or Communications (as it relates to property management), you go on logistics freeze as a unit.  There's no discretion, the Wing Commander shall impose a property freeze.  So, while IGs and Inspectors are, generally, fact finders and lack authority to impose their will, there are exceptions, and appropriate ones.

Um, no.

IGs have no authority whatsoever.  Freezes are implemented by commanders, not inspectors.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

And that brings back to the original question...enrollment in specailty tracks IS on the checklists for the Commander to answer for.

Tab E-1, Question 10:
Are all members assigned to an authorized duty position enrolled in the appropriate specialty track?

The OP stated the issue raised was the person in the duty position had a None rating which in E-Services equals enrolled, but had not progressed to the Tech rating.

[JeffDG]

"Unit has an internet operation and could not provide any evidence of Wing or higher commander or designee approval IAW CAPR 110-1, para 11.  Unit must seek and receive Wing or higher commander approval for site or cease operations of website to close this discrepancy."  Was that so hard?  The regulation is actually incredibly clear, and that's just one example.

Under what auspices do you think you even get to >ask< that question?

You aren't allowed to randomly dig around the regs and ask whatever you feel like.

There's a difference between a follow-up question and something NHQ doesn't intend to be inspected.

In your example, this topic isn't even covered in the SUI, therefore it is not something open to an SUI inspector.

Is CAPR 110-1 a directive from CAP?

If yes, CAPR 123-3 permits an inspector to review compliance therewith.

[Eclipse]

And that brings back to the original question...enrollment in specailty tracks IS on the checklists for the Commander to answer for.

Tab E-1, Question 10:
Are all members assigned to an authorized duty position enrolled in the appropriate specialty track?

The OP stated the issue raised was the person in the duty position had a None rating which in E-Services equals enrolled, but had not progressed to the Tech rating.

Which could be indicated as an AOC, but that's as far as it goes, conversation over. It's not a discrepancy because it's not a requirement,
and it shouldn't even be a topic of conversation since it's compliant.

[Eclipse]

Is CAPR 110-1 a directive from CAP?

If yes, CAPR 123-3 permits an inspector to review compliance therewith.

Please.  You're going to hurt yourself with that mental leap.

123-3 does not give an SUI carter blanche.

Just ask the questions and move on.  You're not there to "fix" a unit or make political points,
you're there to ascertina whether a unit is bare-minimum compliant and can keep the doors
open.  NHQ has made a list of what they think is important and CLEARLY indicated
inspectors should stay on the list.

Just do it.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

And that brings back to the original question...enrollment in specailty tracks IS on the checklists for the Commander to answer for.

Tab E-1, Question 10:
Are all members assigned to an authorized duty position enrolled in the appropriate specialty track?

The OP stated the issue raised was the person in the duty position had a None rating which in E-Services equals enrolled, but had not progressed to the Tech rating.

Which could be indicated as an AOC, but that's as far as it goes, conversation over. It's not a discrepancy because it's not a requirement,
and it shouldn't even be a topic of conversation since it's compliant.

Agree 100%

I like that they moved the enrollment question out of the individual sections. Personally I'd have it in PD / Personnel. I don't think I'd even do an AOC unless it looked like a pattern of NONE and no progress.

[JeffDG]

Is CAPR 110-1 a directive from CAP?

If yes, CAPR 123-3 permits an inspector to review compliance therewith.

Please.  You're going to hurt yourself with that mental leap.

123-3 does not give an SUI carter blanche.

Just ask the questions and move on.  You're not there to "fix" a unit or make political points,
you're there to ascertina whether a unit is bare-minimum compliant and can keep the doors
open.  NHQ has made a list of what they think is important and CLEARLY indicated
inspectors should stay on the list.

Just do it.

Wait, now the inspector can ask questions...I thought commanders should tell them to go pound sand if they ask anything not on the list?

If a unit talks about their website or Facebook page or twitter feed, I'll ask them about it.  123-3 permits inspectors wide latitude to deal with any "CAP directives", and that includes anything that's prefixed with "CAPR". 

Are inspectors encouraged to go trolling?  No.  But if a potential discrepancy comes up, then asking a question is entirely within the discretion of the inspector, and if the unit cannot show compliance, then that's a discrepancy.  Pure and simple.

[Eclipse]

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.

[MacGruff]

We recently had a SUI done and the same question about specialty track came up. We did NOT get a discrepancy as the NONE rating just means that they have not met the requirements for the TECH rating. That officer was only appointed to his duty position a couple of months before the SUI and could not have gotten to TECH if only for the Time-In-Grade requirement.

On the other hand, we did have a "funny". We did get a discrepancy for NOT having the van's records in the van. As it happened, the reason they were not in the van, was because the SUI inspector asked for us to give them to him and he was standing outside the van!  It made for a fun response to the discrepancy finding!

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.

[Grumpy]

Our inspectors were concerned that we might have somebody assigned to a duty assignment that didn't correspond with their specialty code.  We simply entered them into training for that specialty. Problem corrected.  People are in training for their specialty and haven't made the Tech level yet.  Gotta start someplace.

The delete button has been there all along.  In this paperless system it makes it easy to remove someone from training who either can't or won't progress.

A member is required to be enrolled in the PD track for their duty position with two exceptions:
1)  The member has multiple duty positions, they must be enrolled in accord with their "primary" duty position.  Secondary are optional, but encouraged
2)  The member already has a "MASTER" rating.

The regulations nowhere require people to progress in the tracks, simply to be enrolled.

Part b of your statement is exactly what I was trying to say.  Per chance I supplied too much info

[JeffDG]

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.

[sarmed1]

The last CAP wing SAV I was on as an AF inspector we were specifically told to only evaluate and record only areas specifically mentioned on the checklist.  No more.  Yes units are required to be 100% compliant with CAP regs, but only those areas specified are inspected as part of an SUI.  The HHQ block is meant for if there are regional or wing specific directives that may apply only to the effected units ( vs everyone else nationally)
The closest you get outside of the checklist is the last section with commendables, weakness etc.  If you come across something that is "iffy", you can add a comment, but is just that: a comment.  It does not register as a deficiency. And may or may not make it in as part of the official report.

MK

[FW]

No - the inspector is supposed to stay on the list and move on.

The regulations disagree with you.

CAPR 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).  Unit commanders should fully know what they are to be inspected on.  Inspectors should not be given "latitude". SUI's are supposed to be a straight forward process.  The purpose is to gage a unit's effectiveness and preparedness; not a game to find fault in minutia. Just sayn'...

[Storm Chaser]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[pierson777]

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).

[JeffDG]

No - the inspector is supposed to stay on the list and move on.

The regulations disagree with you.

CAPR 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.

[JeffDG]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[EMT-83]

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.

[UWONGO2]

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.

[Eclipse]

Where is 4-2 referenced on the checklist?

[JeffDG]

Where is 4-2 referenced on the checklist?

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

[Eclipse]

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.

[JeffDG]

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.

[Eclipse]

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".

And 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.

[Laplace]

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.

[Private Investigator]

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.     

[FW]

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:

[JeffDG]

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.

[MacGruff]

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.

[Storm Chaser]

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.

Or perhaps many units are simply unaware of this requirement. There are over 130 CAP regulations, pamphlets and CAP-related AFIs, not to mention applicable wing supplements and operating instructions. Most units are severely undermanned, with inexperienced commanders and staff, and it's practically impossible for them to know or follow every single regulation.

Frankly, we have too many regulations and requirements for a volunteer organization in which only half of its members are marginally active and about 20% of those "active" members are doing 80% of the work. How many members in your SUI inspections are wearing three, four or five hats? That seems to be the norm in most units and more inspections outside the scope of the SUI will not help fix that problem.

[Eclipse]

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."

So now "the end justifies the means", "we're all in this together", "the good of the corps".

There's a whole lot that is wrong with the situation in that paragraph - first and foremost a command-level staff who
can "switch hats" and inspect his own people.  Any auditing program with a shred of real integrity would never allow that.
That's not your specific fault, but is another symptom of the lack of manpower and poorly thought out programs.

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.

I would hazard 90% of the units are missing at least 50% of what they should be doing - irrelevant since
that is not what you are there to inspect.  This is why CAP can't have nice things - people who are "empowered"
or "fixing things" outside their mandate. In this case, NHQ pushes out a process designed to ease the burden,
and the inspectors, either ill-informed, or "empowered" simply decide to "do what they will" despite the clear intention and directions.

Is this an issue?  I'm sure it is - then send a memo to the Wing CC indicating the critical nature of this problem.
At which point, as a member of HQ staff (that thing SUI inspectors aren't, he can decide if he cares, and if he does
issue a directive to SUI teams regarding an additional inspection item.

Maybe you should just send him a combined .pdf of all the regs with a note about how "none of these are optional
and we need to inspect every single item...".

[RiverAux]

I do have to say that you really don't need the SUI system to have a good idea of where a squadron is likely to be in regards to full implementation of the CAP program. 

Basically, the smaller the unit is the more likely that significant aspects of CAPs programs are not being accomplished.  The only thing the SUI is going to tell you is which parts that squadron has emphasized and which ones they have let fall by the wayside either through lack of interest or lack of time due to other assignments. 

An average size CAP squadron of about 30 people is probably large enough that you really should be able to expect them to really be doing everything, but an SUI may be helpful in pointing out areas that they need to pay some more attention to. 

[Storm Chaser]

An average size CAP squadron of about 30 people is probably large enough that you really should be able to expect them to really be doing everything, but an SUI may be helpful in pointing out areas that they need to pay some more attention to.

The average 30-member CAP squadron has about 15 active member. Of those, 3-4 members are most likely doing 80% of the work. Kind of hard to "really be doing everything" with those numbers.

[RiverAux]

30 people is going to be enough to carry out the program -- I didn't say that in the average CAP squadron that all members would be participating, just that they do have enough that we could reasonably expect them to be doing everything.  I didn't say they would be doing everything, just that they should be able to. 

And that is where the SUI is probably going to show weaknesses if they have gotten in a situation where a significant percentage of their membership aren't participating fully. 

This falls in line with my general premise that the larger the squadron the more likely they are to actually be doing what we'd like to see all squadrons doing.  My rule of thumb is that if the unit is less than 20 members they're on life support and lucky to exist, 20-40 members may be doing everything if they've got exceptional leadership and participation but gaps will exist, 40+ and if they aren't doing everything there is is a major problem that probably requires a change in commanders.  SUIs are just going to fill in the details of what we probably already know is going on (or not).

[lordmonar]

Well....now you are getting into another whelm of things.

"what we'd like squadrons to be doing".....see now that is something completely different then what the SUI drives and checks.

[Storm Chaser]

30 people is going to be enough to carry out the program -- I didn't say that in the average CAP squadron that all members would be participating, just that they do have enough that we could reasonably expect them to be doing everything.  I didn't say they would be doing everything, just that they should be able to.

I guess that depends on your definition of "everything". With the numbers I provided, it would be difficult to do everything. I worked with a strong composite squadron that had close to 100 members. The unit had robust Cadet, Senior, Aerospace Education and Emergency Services programs. And while we did a lot, we still couldn't do everything.

[RiverAux]

The unit had robust Cadet, Senior, Aerospace Education and Emergency Services programs. And while we did a lot, we still couldn't do everything.

What else is there really? 

Sure, there is always something more that you can do in any of the major programs (why not have 200 cadets in your squadron, 30 person senior ground teams, etc.), but we're talking about what is reasonable -- and the SUI standard is even lower than that -- bare minimum of doing the right paperwork for the most part. 

[Storm Chaser]

...but we're talking about what is reasonable -- and the SUI standard is even lower than that -- bare minimum of doing the right paperwork for the most part.

Correct; except that some inspectors go beyond the scope of the SUI. My point was that a unit with 30 members is likely to only have about half actively participating. And of those, only a hand full of staff members actually doing meaningful work. On top of that, many units have very inexperienced commanders and staff officers. The bottom line is that it's challenging enough for some of these units to run a successful program, let alone to meet every single requirement of every single regulation.

[pierson777]

I'm the original poster for this post, and I wanted to add another item.  Upon reviewing my notes from the SUI, I recalled another thing that the inspector was focused on that wasn't really an SUI question.  He was very interested on how we conduct the Professional Development program.  Specially he wanted to see some sort of documentation to indicate that we correctly conduct and track the PD program.  I directed him to the reports that show that several of our members had attended PD courses, advanced their spec track ratings, and advanced their PD levels.  All CAPFs 45 are updated for PD.  I'm not sure what else I could have showed him.  He showed me his copy of our unit's reports which he highlighted, and asked if we did anything like that.  I explained that we do the same thing, but it's just a personal tool and not part of the official unit record.  It's thrown away when no longer needed.

I'm trying to figure out if we need to create some sort of Operating Instruction for the unit to explain how to conduct the PD program.  Does anyone have any ideas or examples of useful methods or Operating Instructions for their unit for Professional Development (or any other duties)?

[JeffDG]

Maybe he was fishing for some commendable.

If an inspection is going well, I like to ask some open-ended questions not to trip the guy up, but to see if there's something good they're doing that should be shared as a commendable or benchmark candidate.

[EMT-83]

There is no need for a squadron OI for PD. I seem to remember wording about keeping OIs to a minimum.

[Eclipse]

There is no need for a squadron OI for PD. I seem to remember wording about keeping OIs to a minimum.

Correct.  I have yet to see an OI that was worth the trouble of typing it.

They are generally just repeating existing regs, or trying to establish someone as "king of whatever".

[lordmonar]

Maybe he was fishing for some commendable.

If an inspection is going well, I like to ask some open-ended questions not to trip the guy up, but to see if there's something good they're doing that should be shared as a commendable or benchmark candidate.

Then he should have said "Well I'm done with my part of the SUI....is there anything you think is really cool and might be a commendable or benchmark candidate?"
SUIs are nerve wracking enough with out having to fish for stuff and getting the unit members all spun up.  What happened to pierson777 is a prime example why inspectors need to keep to the script.  He is all ready to write 100 pages of OIs for no real good reason.