Inspector General Specialty Track

[SARDOC]

In Reviewing the Specialty Track information for Inspector General, I'm a little surprised that there are no Prerequisites.  I think people entering the IG Specialty Track should have at least a certain amount of time in Civil Air Patrol and at least a Technician rating in at least one other Specialty Track so the inspector is more of a Subject Matter expert on the operations of the Civil Air Patrol.  What are your Thoughts...Thanks

[Eclipse]

Should be Major or above to even start.

Master in at least one other track, preferably one in the core missions (AE, CP, ES).

We don't need newb IG's, all they do is cause problems.

[SarDragon]

Well, I just looked at the current CAPP 203, and it, like most other tracks, takes you through a progression of skills, knowledge, and tasks. There are some course requirements. At least two of them are in seminar.

Some excerpts-

The inspector general technician rating involves helping with complaint investigations and implementing inspector general programs for assessments. A technician rating prepares an IG for duty as an IG staff/support member. Completion of this course and subject matter expertise in inspections area(s) may qualify an officer to be "highly qualified" [CAPR 123-3 para 12e(1)] to assist in subordinate unit inspections.

The inspector general senior rating involves developing inspector general programs for complaints and assessments.A senior rating prepares an IG for duty as an assistant IG to the wing IG.

The inspector general master rating involves managing inspector general programs for complaints and assessments. A master rating qualifies an IG for duty at the wing, region or national level.

All three levels require coursework, and OJT.

I know majors who can't inspect their way out of a wet paper bag, and 2d Lts who would do well in the track. It depends on the individual.  I'm not sure that a Master rating in one of the core missions would be all that relevant, given that those are only three, out of about a dozen, of the inspection areas on a CI or SUI.

YMMV.

[Eclipse]

Granted, but the odds are a Major, or at least someone with Level III, is more likely than not to be better prepared to inspect units, than a SMWOG or even butter bar, any brown-bag^® skills notwithstanding.

The three major areas of ES, CP, and less-so, AE, touch on enough of the rest of the program's pieces that a person is going to have at least a clue as to how things work and what is actually important.

[RADIOMAN015]

Granted, but the odds are a Major, or at least someone with Level III, is more likely than not to be better prepared to inspect units, than a SMWOG or even butter bar, any brown-bag^® skills notwithstanding.

The three major areas of ES, CP, and less-so, AE, touch on enough of the rest of the program's pieces that a person is going to have at least a clue as to how things work and what is actually important.

Get real, it basically just a bunch of checklists they go down and check off and ask question and ask for documentation.  Also ask if you are doing something more than what the checklist requires.   People that are auditors, investigators, and even former military IG's can slip right into these position.  Sometimes it's better to have someone who has less knowledge in an area do the inspections.   Personally I think the IG folks in our wing are fair in their assessments.  Here again though it's basically meeting a checklist approved by CAP-USAF & National HQ.  There's really no surprises.

However, IF you really wanted to make things interesting do some "no notice" operational & even administrative inspections.

RM 

[cap235629]

RM you forget that the IG also handles internal investigations at the direction of NHQ or the Wing CC

[RADIOMAN015]

RM you forget that the IG also handles internal investigations at the direction of NHQ or the Wing CC

CAP should contract with "professional" private investigators to do these investigations.  I personally don't believe that the current CAP system of volunteer investigators works well.
RM       

[Eclipse]

RM you forget that the IG also handles internal investigations at the direction of NHQ or the Wing CC

CAP should contract with "professional" private investigators to do these investigations.  I personally don't believe that the current CAP system of volunteer investigators works well.   

Wait, let me guess...

hm...

...because you have "personal knowledge" of someone held responsible for their own negligence or bad behavior and it cost them money?

[a2capt]

..and that they should wear red tabs?

[Larry Mangum]

Nah, they should not even be in a uniform....

[RADIOMAN015]

RM you forget that the IG also handles internal investigations at the direction of NHQ or the Wing CC

CAP should contract with "professional" private investigators to do these investigations.  I personally don't believe that the current CAP system of volunteer investigators works well.   

Wait, let me guess...

hm...

...because you have "personal knowledge" of someone held responsible for their own negligence or bad behavior and it cost them money?

The primary reason is that the investigation could be closed in much less time (I'm talking about a full time investigator likely from a national firm that could be dispatched quickly in most areas of the country)  and a "professional" with appropriate training that would definitely be impartial in their approach to the investigation.   Where ever the facts fall on an individual under investigation or resolving a complaint that's the way it is.  With volunteer investigators (IG's) scheduling the time to conduct the inquiry might be an issue of the volunteer is employed full time in a demand job.
RM         

[Eclipse]

Yeah - or it might not.  And most people can be contacted these days via phone and email for IG investigations, so scheduling is a non-issue.

Interesting that in the same place you complain about the expense of CAP (and just about everything else related), you advocate things like
increased insurance and professional investigators.

No problem, as long as you have no issue with paying $200 a year to be a member, because that is where the money will come from.

Pick one and go with it.

[RADIOMAN015]

Yeah - or it might not.  And most people can be contacted these days via phone and email for IG investigations, so scheduling is a non-issue.

Interesting that in the same place you complain about the expense of CAP (and just about everything else related), you advocate things like
increased insurance and professional investigators.

No problem, as long as you have no issue with paying $200 a year to be a member, because that is where the money will come from.

Pick one and go with it.

Well, you never know what the cost is going to be unless you ask them.  Sometimes companies are looking for endorsements or are willing to do some work for free for basically the charity write off.  Perhaps the BOG, audit & investigations sub committee could at least look into that option as part of the "tool kit" that could be used IF needed.

BTW I do agree that some things can be done by telephone and maybe email, BUT again depending upon what is being investigated an eye to eye, in the CAP facility environment might be best.
RM
   

[cap235629]

Our wing IG is in charge of the Invesigations Bureau of a very large Police Department. He is totally unqualified but works for free.

[Eclipse]

Since it isn't needed, there is no point in taking the time to research the issue.

Honestly Radio, the level of "inject drama and problem where there is not" in your life must be pretty high.

We don't need to fix things that aren't broken just to make people feel better or provide busy work.

[peter rabbit]

Nah, they should not even be in a uniform....

Black hats, black suits, sunglasses like the "Blues Brothers" or "Men in Black"? 

[RVT]

Should be Major or above to even start.  Master in at least one other track, preferably one in the core missions (AE, CP, ES). 

Sounds like the Organizational Excellence track.  THAT one has heavy prerequisites and you have to apply to even be accepted in it.

[RADIOMAN015]

Since it isn't needed, there is no point in taking the time to research the issue.

Honestly Radio, the level of "inject drama and problem where there is not" in your life must be pretty high.

We don't need to fix things that aren't broken just to make people feel better or provide busy work.

I think it's good 'internal control procedures' to randomly spot check members using aircraft and vehicles to be sure that all regulations are being complied with.  I would guess that CAP members could possibly do this BUT if you get into photographing or videoing personnel on a more enhanced surveillance mode, the appropriate state law may required you to utilize a properly licensed private investigator or law enforcement personnel.

Again, it's something that can be looked at by the BOG and used on an as needed basis (but have the contract in place so that it can be immediately implemented).  I think most members in the IG positions do the very best they can with the training and education that they have BUT sometimes external assistance may be the best way to go.
RM

[Larry Mangum]

The statement " I would guess that CAP members could possibly do this BUT if you get into photographing or videoing personnel on a more enhanced surveillance mode", just shows you really do not know what the role of the IG is either in the Military or CAP.  Perhaps, you should set down and talk to an IG sometime.

[Eclipse]

^ ...and a half.

IG's are not the secret police of CAP, nor do they even have any enforcement or command authority.

They simply investigate and report findings after a complaint is filed, and they may be involved in inspections of units if that is the
plan the respective wing uses.

Radio - on one hand you want CAP to leave people alone, less regs, less cost, and on the other you want to hire people to hide in bushes and
try to find violations of regulations?

[Capination]

In Reviewing the Specialty Track information for Inspector General, I'm a little surprised that there are no Prerequisites.  I think people entering the IG Specialty Track should have at least a certain amount of time in Civil Air Patrol and at least a Technician rating in at least one other Specialty Track so the inspector is more of a Subject Matter expert on the operations of the Civil Air Patrol.  What are your Thoughts...Thanks

You are right on the desired experience requirement. A Senior Member can select the IG track, but he/she is not allowed to work as IG unless he/she advances through the IG Specialty Track. For example, in order to be Technician you should:

1. complete the CAP Basic Inspector General Course;
2. participate in two assessments as a team member;
3. be evaluated by a Senior or Master rated IG at the next higher headquarters; and
4. serve a minimum of 6 months as a staff member to a wing or region IG.

Further, the attainment of the new skill rating must be verified by the next higher headquarters inspector general, and certified by their unit commander.

This is just starting. An IG is not just following a written procedure. An investigation is a really complex matter that, when done responsibly, takes time, analysis and a quite a bit of gray matter. 

[DrJbdm]

^
IG's are not the secret police of CAP, nor do they even have any enforcement or command authority.

What?? They don't fly around in the black helicopters or drive the black vans??

[Al Sayre]

Only as Observers... 

[Hardshell Clam]

Hiring "professional private investigators" is a bad idea. Little if any training is required to get a PI ticket. Read the study guide and take a test in my state.

Use real govt. trained instigators for real investigations. The inspection part can be learned in a few months.

Real investigative training and field experience is the key.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Considering the first step in the IG complaint process is to identify what possible CAP regulations or policies may have been violated, it might just be useful to have worked with a few of them and to be able to translate them.

I'm reminded of some of the early issues in e-services where I told many people I think they handed the related CAP regs to a professional developer and said code to this. Some of the results were interesting. I code for a living. A few times I thought, I can see that if they read just CAPR XX-X they would think this and why would they think to look at CAPR YY-Y? Asking a military, law enforcement or other experienced investigator to understand the CAP regs cold would have some unintended consequences.

Would I welcome a trained investigator on my staff? Absolutely. Will I survive without one? With the help of my legal officer, my region IG and some more experienced IGs in nearby wings, yes. 

[JC004]

...
Use real govt. trained instigators
...

How does one become trained as an instigator?  I would like to try this.

[SARDOC]

How does one become trained as an instigator?  I would like to try this.

I thought it was on the Job training for all CT moderators...maybe you need more than 5000 posts to qualify.   

[Eclipse]

Real investigative training and field experience is the key.

This isn't the X-Files.

Most investigations are minor he-said / she-said situations, personality conflicts, and the occasional broken or missing property.  Hardly
situations which require more than the ability to stay dis-involved, ask direct questions, and forward the answers to the commander without
a filter.

[Hardshell Clam]

"Hardly situations which require more than the ability to stay , ask direct questions, and forward the answers to the commander without a filter." 

And next time you need your engine rebuilt just take it to Jiffy Lube, heck the car's manual is in the glove box, that's all they need... 

Sorry Eclipse, but its takes a heck of a lot more then then that to perform professional investigations that might end up in arbitration or prosecution and could end up damaging lives.

The VERY first thing I would attack in any sort of arbitration is the qualifications of the investigating officer if I were defending a client. The CAP is moving towards a more professional force and when we fall back on the "its good enough" attitudes we do ourself a disservice.

[Eclipse]

If you're not going to use the quote tags properly, at least copy the whole quote.

Sorry Eclipse, but its takes a heck of a lot more then then that to perform professional investigations that might end up in arbitration or prosecution and could end up damaging lives.

These aren't "Professional Investigations".  Should we be Mirandizing cadets who lose a radio on a SAREx before asking them where it is?

Issues with real-world ramifications go directly to corporate officers and JAGs who are lawyers by definition.  The ground level stuff like a missing $10 car adapter doesn't need Magnum PI to roll up in his Ferrari to figure out it fell out of the van when they stopped for gas.

[peter rabbit]

If you're not going to use the quote tags properly, at least copy the whole quote.

Sorry Eclipse, but its takes a heck of a lot more then then that to perform professional investigations that might end up in arbitration or prosecution and could end up damaging lives.

These aren't "Professional Investigations".  Should we be Mirandizing cadets who lose a radio on a SAREx before asking them where it is?

Issues with real-world ramifications go directly to corporate officers and JAGs who are lawyers by definition.  The ground level stuff like a missing $10 car adapter doesn't need Magnum PI to roll up in his Ferrari to figure out it fell out of the van when they stopped for gas.

I know you hate technicalities, but the IG doesn't investigate missing property. That's done under Reports of Survey conducted under CAPR 67-1, CAP Property Regulation. I can tell you that the IG system has investigated a lot more in the past year than just he said/she said and personality conflicts. That's why the IG courses have been improved and will continue to improve. Is it 'perfect'? Of course not. There are several changes that I and others believe would help. We'll see what happens.

[Eclipse]

Point taken on the property investigations.

[jimmydeanno]

And next time you need your engine rebuilt just take it to Jiffy Lube, heck the car's manual is in the glove box, that's all they need... 

The last time I needed my car's engine rebuilt, I did just that.  I opened the instruction manual and followed the directions.  The car ran beautifully afterwards - I'm not a mechanic.

[Hardshell Clam]

We all have good points to be sure and I guess my big point is we need to do it right after all "Excellence in all We Do" is more then a motto, smart remarks about certain Hawaiian P.I.s aside.

[RiverAux]

A Senior Member can select the IG track, but he/she is not allowed to work as IG unless he/she advances through the IG Specialty Track. For example, in order to be Technician you should:

1. complete the CAP Basic Inspector General Course;
2. participate in two assessments as a team member;
3. be evaluated by a Senior or Master rated IG at the next higher headquarters; and
4. serve a minimum of 6 months as a staff member to a wing or region IG.

Further, the attainment of the new skill rating must be verified by the next higher headquarters inspector general, and certified by their unit commander.

This is just starting. An IG is not just following a written procedure. An investigation is a really complex matter that, when done responsibly, takes time, analysis and a quite a bit of gray matter. 

I was initially sympathetic to the idea of requiring a rating in one of the other fields before starting IG, but if these are the requirements to get started, I think I can live with them.  After all, I can't think of many situations where an intimate knowledge of the AE or ES regulations or programs is going to impact an IG investigation.  The cadet program, at least in so far as the cadet protection regulations are concerned, is a slightly different story since that seems to be a relatively fertile area for potential problems.  But, I don't think having a CP rating would really help an IG much in investigating a cadet protection related complaint. 

[Eclipse]

We all have good points to be sure and I guess my big point is we need to do it right after all "Excellence in all We Do" is more then a motto, smart remarks about certain Hawaiian P.I.s aside.

[SARDOC]

]I was initially sympathetic to the idea of requiring a rating in one of the other fields before starting IG, but if these are the requirements to get started, I think I can live with them.  After all, I can't think of many situations where an intimate knowledge of the AE or ES regulations or programs is going to impact an IG investigation.  The cadet program, at least in so far as the cadet protection regulations are concerned, is a slightly different story since that seems to be a relatively fertile area for potential problems.  But, I don't think having a CP rating would really help an IG much in investigating a cadet protection related complaint.

I would think Ratings in Finance, Personnel, or at least Command experience maybe even Safety or Logistics would be helpful experience before appointment as an Inspector General.

[Hardshell Clam]

No one is just appointed an "Inspector General" it takes a while of training and OJT to be able to do inspections and no one in my wing is doing investigations that is not a master or a current/former public sector detective.

[Eclipse]

Anyone may be appointed an IG below the Wing Level, the only educational requirement is the online Inspector General Basic Course, which must be completed prior to performing IG duties, but not prior to appointment.

There is no OJT requirement specified for any level of IG appointment.

Having taken the IGBC, I can tell you that it is simply a reiteration of process and procedure as detailed in 123-1 and related docs.

[RADIOMAN015]

No one is just appointed an "Inspector General" it takes a while of training and OJT to be able to do inspections and no one in my wing is doing investigations that is not a master or a current/former public sector detective.

Well you do need "functional" experts when conducting investigations also.  So if it's pilot related you want to have an experienced pilot, with appropriate credentials, etc.  My personal feeling is that depending upon who is being investigated it might be better to get someone(who is qualified as an investigator for the type of investigation being conducted) not even associated with CAP to conduct the investigation.

As far as compliance inspections, it's basically a checklist they are going through -- really there's no surprises or black vans with heavily tinted windows following you around prior to the "scheduled" inspection :angel:
RM 

[Hardshell Clam]

"Anyone may be appointed an IG below the Wing Level, the only educational requirement is the online Inspector General Basic Course, which must be completed prior to performing IG duties, but not prior to appointment."

Actually as wing controls the IG program, anyone can take the course but wing appoints Assistant IG's to do IG work and they control the assignments. You make it sound like you can take the course and start" inspecting"

"There is no OJT requirement specified for any level of IG appointment."

So, you can just bypass the service training as described in the Inspector General Specialty Track Study Guide?

Aditonally, IGs cannot just start investigating after taking the course. For this to happen, they must be appointed an "investigation officer" and this is done at wing level or higher. The Wing C.O. and or the I.G. decides who will do the investigating.

It has been my experience that the inspections are done by assistant IGs from the squadrons and investigations are done by IG staff that are at wing level, or wing appoints an investigating officer who best fills the bill.

More often then not the investigator has specialised skills such as an accountant for fraud investigations or a police detective for his/her criminal investigation skills. A member who is an insurance salesman and has taken the basic course cannot expect to be assigned a complex investigation as this is an unrealistic expection.

[Eclipse]

More often then not Rarely does the investigator haves specialised skills such as an accountant for fraud investigations or a police detective for his/her criminal investigation skills. A member who is an insurance salesman and has taken the basic course could very well becannot expect to be assigned a complex investigation as this is an unrealistic expection standard practice.

I fixed that for you.

The other information is already in this thread and in 123-1. No point in being redundant.

[JC004]

"Anyone may be appointed an IG below the Wing Level, the only educational requirement is the online Inspector General Basic Course, which must be completed prior to performing IG duties, but not prior to appointment."

Actually as wing controls the IG program, anyone can take the course but wing appoints Assistant IG's to do IG work and they control the assignments. You make it sound like you can take the course and start" inspecting"

"There is no OJT requirement specified for any level of IG appointment."

So, you can just bypass the service training as described in the Inspector General Specialty Track Study Guide?

Aditonally, IGs cannot just start investigating after taking the course. For this to happen, they must be appointed an "investigation officer" and this is done at wing level or higher. The Wing C.O. and or the I.G. decides who will do the investigating.

It has been my experience that the inspections are done by assistant IGs from the squadrons and investigations are done by IG staff that are at wing level, or wing appoints an investigating officer who best fills the bill.

More often then not the investigator has specialised skills such as an accountant for fraud investigations or a police detective for his/her criminal investigation skills. A member who is an insurance salesman and has taken the basic course cannot expect to be assigned a complex investigation as this is an unrealistic expection.

We have a quote feature for this.

[Hardshell Clam]

"I fixed that for you".

No, you just demonstarted yet again what your about.

[arajca]

"I fixed that for you".

No, you just demonstarted yet again what your about.

What Eclipse did was inject the reality for the vast majority of CAP 'investigations' into your narrow reality. While what you posted would be the ideal, it doesn't happen very often. More often than not, Eclipse's "fix" is what really happens.

[Hardshell Clam]

My reality is not narrow by any means, however I do understand that there is a shortage of qualified staff in all speciality fields.

It remains the goal of the overall CAP IG program to perform in accordance with the core values and while this is a goal that can be reached, it is a long road for a lot of wings.

It also remains inappropriate for Eclipse to "fix" anything in other's posts, but rather post his opinion(s) without mocking, sarcastic or rude remarks.

[arajca]

It remains the goal of the overall CAP IG program to perform in accordance with the core values and while this is a goal that can be reached, it is a long road for a lot of wings.

So, in most wings, the IGs do not perform in accordance with the core values? I'm not aware that being an expert in whatever field you're investigating is one of the core values.
Let's see:
Integrity
Volunteer Service
Excellence
Respect

I'm not seeing "expert" anywhere in there.

[Hardshell Clam]

"I'm not seeing "expert" anywhere in there."

And you are snipping at my post and using it out of context.

[SarDragon]

It didn't appear that the rest of the post was pertinent to the reply.

And, FWIW, your refusal to use the provided quote feature is really annoying. If you expect people to read your posts, at least take the time to make them readable.

[Ed Bos]

No one is just appointed an "Inspector General" it takes a while of training and OJT to be able to do inspections and no one in my wing is doing investigations that is not a master or a current/former public sector detective.

I apologize if I'm misunderstanding the point of this discussion, but I have met individuals who are "just appointed" as IGs, and despite some (sometimes very little) training in the IG track these CAP Officers are investigating programs during SUIs without understanding the most basic principles of the programs they're investigating.

If I understand correctly, this thread started with the suggestion that IG's meet a level of mastery in one of the mission areas, or support areas before they're responsible for ensuring these programs are effective and compliant.

I think the point Eclipse was making here:

Anyone may be appointed an IG below the Wing Level, the only educational requirement is the online Inspector General Basic Course, which must be completed prior to performing IG duties, but not prior to appointment.

There is no OJT requirement specified for any level of IG appointment.

Having taken the IGBC, I can tell you that it is simply a reiteration of process and procedure as detailed in 123-1 and related docs.

is that the lack of mandating that IG appointments be restricted to seasoned CAP members hurts us all.

[DrJbdm]

  The IG program needs to be broken down into two separate but equal groups, you need IG's whose main focus and area of responsibility is to conduct SUI's. Allow them and train them to become the technical area experts.

  You also need IG's who are in the Investigation side of the house, and those IG's should be required to have special qualifications such as law degrees, current Law Enforcement Investigators / Senior Police Officers, or civilian investigators with a State or Federal agency, ie: Insurance Investigators, Child Abuse Investigators, State IG Investigators, ect. No, being a PI does not count. You need specific skills in conducting interviews, asking the right questions and observing deception. CAP Investigations are not criminal in nature, they are administrative. But you need Investigators that can correctly identify when you have a criminal investigation and when you have a civil or administrative investigation. If it turns criminal, we have to know how to handle it correctly so that we do not damage the case before it gets handed off to the correct investigating agency.

  However, Investigations are a very small part of the overall CAP IG program, Compliance Inspections are the main focus of the IG program, and that needs to be really beefed up. To be able to do a robust inspection, you need to know what you are looking for, not just going thru a check list.

  Our IG training programs are lacking in some areas, and are too short in other areas. Don't get me wrong, it is far better than before and they have really improved over the years and will continue to improve. We have to have a robust Compliance Inspection Program for the betterment of CAP and in keeping with our CAP core values, it's a must.

  As I said before, our National and Wing IG's are doing a great job, and the IG program is an evolving process and it will continue get better as we continue to strive for perfection. We just need a few tweaks to the program.

[Eclipse]

You also need IG's who are in the Investigation side of the house, and those IG's should be required to have special qualifications such as law degrees, current Law Enforcement Investigators / Senior Police Officers, or civilian investigators with a State or Federal agency, ie: Insurance Investigators, Child Abuse Investigators, State IG Investigators, ect. No, being a PI does not count. You need specific skills in conducting interviews, asking the right questions and observing deception. CAP Investigations are not criminal in nature, they are administrative. But you need Investigators that can correctly identify when you have a criminal investigation and when you have a civil or administrative investigation. If it turns criminal, we have to know how to handle it correctly so that we do not damage the case before it gets handed off to the correct investigating agency.

CAP "Investigations" are simple fact-finding, nothing more, and constitute no legal authority, nor any actual authority within CAP.  IG's ask questions,
make recommendations, and then the commander(s) involved act (or do not).

If you raise the investigators to the legal level, then you need to do the same for those being investigated, and provide them "counsel" in answering the questions.  "Observing Deception?"  This isn't CSI - ask the question, get the answer, CAP, Inc. either believes the answer or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, disciplinary action or termination.  Period.  The second there is a whiff of criminal activity, the IG needs to shut down and turn things over to proper authorities outside CAP.

It should be said that a respective member is under no obligation to even entertain an IG's questions - they risk their membership of course, but that's as far as it goes, and just as with everything in CAP regarding disciplinary action, the interest in "being honest" is generally in direct proportion to how much a member values their membership.  Beyond that it's all academic.

Also, lawyers, police officers, and related disciplines may have a "duty to report" things that takes the entire situation out of a CAP, Inc's hand and blow them well out of proportion.

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

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

  The IG program needs to be broken down into two separate but equal groups, you need IG's whose main focus and area of responsibility is to conduct SUI's. Allow them and train them to become the technical area experts.

The IG program is in 2 parts both supervised by the Wing IG. Separate training is available for Investigative Officers (IO) and Inspectors. I would not be surprised if in some wings Asst IGs specialize in 1 area or the other.

  You also need IG's who are in the Investigation side of the house, and those IG's should be required to have special qualifications such as law degrees, current Law Enforcement Investigators / Senior Police Officers, or civilian investigators with a State or Federal agency, ie: Insurance Investigators, Child Abuse Investigators, State IG Investigators, ect. No, being a PI does not count. You need specific skills in conducting interviews, asking the right questions and observing deception. CAP Investigations are not criminal in nature, they are administrative. But you need Investigators that can correctly identify when you have a criminal investigation and when you have a civil or administrative investigation. If it turns criminal, we have to know how to handle it correctly so that we do not damage the case before it gets handed off to the correct investigating agency.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that I'd be thrilled to have an experienced investigator to serve as an IO. I was appointed IG based on my knowledge of CAP regs and varied experience in CAP. As outlined in our regs I would determine what was alleged in a complaint (Who did what to whom on what date and in violation of what CAP regulation or policy?)  and if warranted recommend to my commander to appoint this experienced person as IO. As I'm rebuilding a virtually abandoned IG program, right now I'd be doing the investigations in close coordination with the Legal Officer. 

  However, Investigations are a very small part of the overall CAP IG program, Compliance Inspections are the main focus of the IG program, and that needs to be really beefed up. To be able to do a robust inspection, you need to know what you are looking for, not just going thru a check list.

Investigations are a small part of the Complaint side of the IG program. I've been told < 5% of complaints go to formal investigation. Personality conflicts are not investigated, as there has to be a violation of a regulation or policy. Others are misunderstandings that can be resolved at lower levels, sometimes with the IG acting as facilitator.

The current program for inspections requires training focusing on consistent techniques on evaluating units and reporting the results. This course and being deemed highly qualified in specific areas by the IG and CC is the standard to be on a inspection team. So we take volunteer members with good experience in 1 or more program areas and train on the techniques to inspect and report. The check list serves as a standard and I'll guess is updated by the national IG team to add focus on areas found lacking in the last few cycles.

  Our IG training programs are lacking in some areas, and are too short in other areas. Don't get me wrong, it is far better than before and they have really improved over the years and will continue to improve. We have to have a robust Compliance Inspection Program for the betterment of CAP and in keeping with our CAP core values, it's a must.

  As I said before, our National and Wing IG's are doing a great job, and the IG program is an evolving process and it will continue get better as we continue to strive for perfection. We just need a few tweaks to the program.

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

[Hardshell Clam]

FYI:

IG Definitions:

1.Abuse is the intentional, wrongful, or improper use of CAP resources such as the misuse of rank, position, or authority that causes the loss or misuse of resources such as tools, vehicles, computers, copy machines, etc.
2.Complainant means one who identifies a possible violation of a CAP directive, violation of law or serious misconduct, and brings it to the attention of the inspector general or a person in a position of leadership or authority.
3.Complaint means a written document listing facts and circumstances specifically alleging a violation of a CAP directive , a violation of law, or misconduct.
4.Fraud is any intentional deception (including attempts and conspiracies to effect such deception) for the purpose of: inducing CAP action, inaction or reliance on that deception; depriving CAP of something of value; securing from CAP a benefit, privilege, or consideration to which the party is not entitled.  Such practices include, but are not limited to:  offer of payment, acceptance of bribes or gratuities; making false statements, submission of false claims, use of false weights or measures, evasion or corruption of inspectors and other officials, deceit by suppression of the truth or misrepresentation of a material fact, adulteration or substitution of materials, falsification of records and books of account, arrangements for secret profits, kickbacks, or commissions, and conspiracy to use any of these devices.
5.Frivolous Complaint is the filing of trivial, superficial, and senseless complaints that may tend to subvert, obscure, or impede leadership authority, or a complaint intended for retaliation against the corporation, general membership, or a specific member for the purpose of harassment, abuse, or adversely impacting morale.
6.Hostile Environment means any threatening environment or atmosphere including, but not limited to, emotional and physical abuse, hazing, stalking, and offensive language..
7.Investigation is an authorized, systematic, and detailed examination to uncover facts and determine the truth and validity of a complaint.
8.Preliminary Investigation means the gathering of information or facts to determine whether the merits of an allegation constitute a complaint under this regulation.
9.Priority Investigation means an investigation directly involving cadet protection issues, safety, loss of life, or CAP tangible assets.  These investigations are critical and will take precedence over all other pending investigations.
10.Waste is the extravagant, careless, or needless expenditure of CAP funds or consumption of CAP property that results from deficient practices, system controls, or decisions.
11.Conclusion classifications:
a.SUSTAINED -- an allegation is "sustained" when the inquiry reveals "a preponderance of evidence" in support of the allegation.
b.NOT SUSTAINED -- The inquiry determined that the act complained of did not occur, was justified according to applicable directives, or that there was not a preponderance of evidence to support the allegation.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Are you just trying to up your post count?

[SarDragon]

Meh - meaningless effort, anyway.

[Hardshell Clam]

Banal remarks.

[Major Lord]

Are you just trying to up your post count?

Do we get "Rewards Miles" or something? Or just the sheer joy of being the most prolific, opinionated person on CapTalk? If so, the competition is pretty stiff.......

As a Private Investigator, or an investigator of any type, you begin to realize at some point that you are never completely free of bias or Agenda. If you have any self-awareness at all, you eventually realize that any type of professional investigator ( with the possible exception of some scientific researchers) you realize that you are not merely an observer and recorder of facts; you become, in some sense, an advocate. Do you believe the police officer arresting you ( yes, you! You know who you are!) is an impartial collector of facts? His self image demands ( as well it should) that he remain an advocate for the public good, but maintain enough professionally dispassionate temperament to be effective, and avoid career and self destruction, and gross miscarriages of justice. Frankly, very few men have the capability and integrity to manage this.  Even an IG needs some skills in deception detection to help him narrow or direct the scope of his investigation. In doing so, he is wittingly or unwittingly steering the outcome. In my view, an I.G should be the equivalent of an Auditor, and let the facts guide him where they may, using his knowledge, skill set, and intuition or any other tool he may (lawfully) have available. When he has completed his task, he hands his body of work to the next echelon, who may or may not act according to their own judgement, biases, duplicity, maliciousness, or judicial temperament. We hope for the best, and settle for something short, but that's life.


Major Lord

[Eclipse]

Are you just trying to up your post count?

Do we get "Rewards Miles" or something? Or just the sheer joy of being the most prolific, opinionated person on CapTalk? If so, the competition is pretty stiff.......

Yeah, seriously...HEY!

[SAR-EMT1]

Should be Major or above to even start.

Master in at least one other track, preferably one in the core missions (AE, CP, ES).

We don't need newb IG's, all they do is cause problems.

We don't need IG's, all they do is cause problems.


We don't need newb's, all they do is cause problems.

I kidd I kidd...

[Private Investigator]

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

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

[Private Investigator]

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

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

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

[davidsinn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Eclipse]

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

Outstanding circular reasoning.

[Hardshell Clam]

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

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

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

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

[johnnyb47]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Eclipse]

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

Who's arguing against anything?

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

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

[Hardshell Clam]

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

Who's arguing against anything?

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

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

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

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

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

MISSION STATEMENT

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

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

[Private Investigator]

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

I disagree and lets leave it at that.

[Spaceman3750]

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

I disagree and lets leave it at that.

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

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

[Hardshell Clam]

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

I disagree and lets leave it at that.

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

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

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

[Spaceman3750]

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

I disagree and lets leave it at that.

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

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

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

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

[Hardshell Clam]

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

I disagree and lets leave it at that.

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

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

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

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

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

[Ed Bos]

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

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