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.