CAP Whistleblower protection weakened

[RiverAux]

In the new CAPR 123-2 (7 Jan 2007) the whistleblower protection clauses have been weakened by changing the wording in the prohibition on interfering with these complaints or taking retribution on those who make them. 

The key phrase reads (with emphasis on wording change):

3(2) Any CAP member who attempts to limit another member's right to make or prepare a protected communication, or who attempts to retaliate against a member for making or preparing a protected communication is in violation of the CAP Whistleblower Protection Program policy and may receive administrative and/or disciplinary action.

Does anyone have a copy of the old version?  Did it say that that those who took these actions would or will be subject to disciplinary action? 

Pretty said that they have now left open the possibility for major retaliation against a member going unpunished even if proven. 

[SarDragon]

In the new CAPR 123-2 (7 Jan 2007) the whistleblower protection clauses have been weakened by changing the wording in the prohibition on interfering with these complaints or taking retribution on those who make them. 

The key phrase reads (with emphasis on wording change):

3(2) Any CAP member who attempts to limit another member's right to make or prepare a protected communication, or who attempts to retaliate against a member for making or preparing a protected communication is in violation of the CAP Whistleblower Protection Program policy and may receive administrative and/or disciplinary action.

Does anyone have a copy of the old version?  Did it say that that those who took these actions would or will be subject to disciplinary action? 

Pretty said that they have now left open the possibility for major retaliation against a member going unpunished even if proven. 

Old version -

3.a.2) Any Civil Air Patrol member who attempts to limit another member's right to make or prepare a protected communication, or who attempts to retaliate against a member for making or preparing a protected communication is in violation of the CAP Whistleblower Protection Program policy and is subject to administrative and/or disciplinary action.

[lordmonar]

I'm glad that they did not put in "Would" or "will".

Sometimes, a just some counceling is all that is necessary.   If you mandate adminstrative action...that means you have to 2b, demote or remove from office everyone who even suggests that someone not make a report.

[Pylon]

I don't see any change in how the policy works from "is subject to" to "may receive".  The policy has really not changed at all and still provides the same protections as it always has.

Additionally, I agree with Capt Harris' assessment of the protections provided.  You want to make sure that a full range of tools is available to you as a supervisor, and not back yourself into a corner and reduce your options.  In my opinion, the protections are sufficient for me (and I'm sure many others) to feel comfortable blowing the proverbial whistle if need be.

[RiverAux]

Okay, I ASSumed the early policy was stronger. 

However, in a situation such as this I think stronger language is required since breaking this regulation would show the ultimate lapse in core values.  I think leaving this sort of wiggle room makes it even less likely that someone will blow the whisltle.  After all there is nothing that would require someone who retaliates against you face any penalty at all. 

In some regulations there should be room for commander discretion, but in others there should not.  If there is evidence that retaliation happened, the person who did it SHOULD be punished.  We don't say that someone who murdered someone MAY be penalized.  If there is evidence that someone committed the crime we go ahead and charge them and let the judge and jury sort it out. 

[lordmonar]

Oh I agree.  But they should be punished based on the their level of offense.  Like I said.  If you say "must" or "will" that means you must follow through no matter how minor or how great the violation was.

Say if you came on this forum and said..."I'm going to make an IG complaint" and I said "I don't really think you should"  I would be in violation of your version of the regulation and my command would have to do adminstrative actions agains me.

Right now the only adminstrative actions available are 2b, demotion or removal from a duty position.  Is that fair?

Leaving the door open balances between robotic punishment and no protection at all.

[RiverAux]

You woudn't be in violation by saying I shouldn't file the complain since you actually have no way to limit my right to do so.  A commander can try and does have the power to retaliate. 

Just my saying that someone who retaliates should be punished it doesn't mean only that the wrath of God would come down on them.  It wouldn't say exactly what must be done, just that some form of punishment would be applied.  It just wouldn't leave open the option of not punishing them at all.

[lordmonar]

The regulations says "any CAP member who attempts..."

Just me saying "don't do it" is an attempt to dissuade you from putting in an IG report.

If the regulation say "Will receive administrative and/or disciplinary action" then the IG's hands would be tied.  He would HAVE TO do administrative and/or disciplinary action against me.

So we cay "May" and the appropriate authority will take the appropriate actions based on the facts of the situation.

Does that give an out for the GOB network?  Sure it does....that is why you can always sue for redress of grievances.

[ZigZag911]

An independent IG would resolve the "GOB" issue nicely

[Guardrail]

An independent IG would resolve the "GOB" issue nicely

I think a Quality Assurance program would do nicely, too.  I'm surprised there isin't one already, unless there's something I've missed (some time has passed since I left CAP). 

[lordmonar]

An independent IG would resolve the "GOB" issue nicely

We have an independant IG system...just like every other federal agency.  What we don't have is anybody willing to make the lower levels accoutable.

[Guardrail]

An independent IG would resolve the "GOB" issue nicely

We have an independant IG system...just like every other federal agency.  What we don't have is anybody willing to make the lower levels accoutable.

Thus the need for a quality assurance program. 

[ZigZag911]

An independent IG would resolve the "GOB" issue nicely

We have an independant IG system...just like every other federal agency.  What we don't have is anybody willing to make the lower levels accoutable.

Somewhere on this web site I read that the National CAP CC was underinvestigation for alleged  violations of testing procedures.

I believe I also read that the National IG is charged with conducting this investigation.

And I seem to recall that the National IG is appointed by the National CC.

Casting no aspersions on the incumbents of those offices, I still fail to comprehend how this relationship constitutes an "independent IG".

Feel free to enlighten me.

[ZigZag911]

An independent IG would resolve the "GOB" issue nicely

We have an independant IG system...just like every other federal agency.  What we don't have is anybody willing to make the lower levels accoutable.

I just re-read your post...hold the LOWER levels accountable??  You gotta be kidding!

Who holds the SENIOR levels accountable in this organization?

In fact, who are they accountable TO?

[lordmonar]

An independent IG would resolve the "GOB" issue nicely

We have an independent IG system...just like every other federal agency.  What we don't have is anybody willing to make the lower levels accountable.

Thus the need for a quality assurance program. 

That's not QA...that's simply commanders telling their people where the line is drawn, and firring the ones who cross it.  And subsequent commanders holding the lower levels for doing this.

QA in USAF speak is something completely different.

[lordmonar]

An independent IG would resolve the "GOB" issue nicely

We have an independent IG system...just like every other federal agency.  What we don't have is anybody willing to make the lower levels accountable.

Somewhere on this web site I read that the National CAP CC was under investigation for alleged  violations of testing procedures.

I believe I also read that the National IG is charged with conducting this investigation.

And I seem to recall that the National IG is appointed by the National CC.

Casting no aspersions on the incumbents of those offices, I still fail to comprehend how this relationship constitutes an "independent IG".

Feel free to enlighten me.

That is because the wrong IG is investigating.  However we have the same problem with the federal government.  If the president does something wrong...who investigates?  Why the FBI!  Who does the FBI work for?  The Attorney General...who is appointed by the the CINC.

Sometimes that is just he way it is.  The national IG is going to report to someone with authority to do something.  The BOG and NB should be reading the IG report and take appropriate actions.

[lordmonar]

I just re-read your post...hold the LOWER levels accountable??  You gotta be kidding!

Who holds the SENIOR levels accountable in this organization?

In fact, who are they accountable TO?

Squadrons to group, group to wing, wing to region, region to national, NHQ to the BOG/NB.

Yes it is circular...but that is the way it is.  Who is the POTUS accountable to?  Short of impeachment all we can do is vote him out of office.

Same for the National Commander.  All you have to do is convince enough members of the NB that he has got to go...and away he goes.

[ZigZag911]

That is because the wrong IG is investigating.  However we have the same problem with the federal government.  If the president does something wrong...who investigates?  Why the FBI!  Who does the FBI work for?  The Attorney General...who is appointed by the the CINC.

Sometimes that is just he way it is.  The national IG is going to report to someone with authority to do something.  The BOG and NB should be reading the IG report and take appropriate actions.

Wrong IG?  I take it you feel AETC/AU or some other USAF IG (or perhaps OSI) ought to be looking into this.

I agree.

We don't seem to do that often!

Now, regarding the investigation of the President, generally that is done under the auspices of Congress, utilizing a special prosecutor appointed by Congress ( or the Attorney General, but I think that is for investigations outside the White House)