Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2017, 01:22:14 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: Question for Admin Officers who've Participated in Recent SUI
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Question for Admin Officers who've Participated in Recent SUI  (Read 620 times)
DemonOps
Member

Posts: 89
Unit: GLR-MI-703

« on: February 28, 2017, 12:18:48 PM »

I'm going through my first SUI as Admin Officer.  I've been given my portion of the SUI (D-4 ADMINISTRATION).  Reviewing what is being asked, I see everything I used to do in the Air Force before the age of the downloaded regulations and forms, such as (examples):


First three items from the D-4 ADMINISTRATION deals with properly managing the production and maintenance of unit specific regulations and forms... since units below wing level can't produce their own supplements to wing regulations, would the local/group admin officer just write in N/A?


The fourth item deals with keeping a formal file plan for regulations.  With ePublishing, I've downloaded and put in an electronic file, all the admin regulations I need to do my job.  I don't print these items out. 


Finally, I'm being asked if I back up all my electronic data.  I do, but to an external hard-drive.  Wondering if I should create an account with an online data storage that allows me to give other members have access to whatever I put in that file (currently, the admin officer works for the personnel officer, who has all the files, etc.).


Ideally, it would be great if someone could send me a copy of their D-4 ADMINISTRATION worksheet for units below wing level.


Thanks, Dave   

Logged
David J. D'Arcy, Capt, CAP
West Michigan Historian and Administration Officer
AlphaSigOU
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,117
Unit: SER-AL-001

The Kwaj Drafter!
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2017, 01:06:58 PM »

I'm going through my first SUI as Admin Officer.  I've been given my portion of the SUI (D-4 ADMINISTRATION).  Reviewing what is being asked, I see everything I used to do in the Air Force before the age of the downloaded regulations and forms, such as (examples):


First three items from the D-4 ADMINISTRATION deals with properly managing the production and maintenance of unit specific regulations and forms... since units below wing level can't produce their own supplements to wing regulations, would the local/group admin officer just write in N/A?


The fourth item deals with keeping a formal file plan for regulations.  With ePublishing, I've downloaded and put in an electronic file, all the admin regulations I need to do my job.  I don't print these items out. 


Finally, I'm being asked if I back up all my electronic data.  I do, but to an external hard-drive.  Wondering if I should create an account with an online data storage that allows me to give other members have access to whatever I put in that file (currently, the admin officer works for the personnel officer, who has all the files, etc.).


Ideally, it would be great if someone could send me a copy of their D-4 ADMINISTRATION worksheet for units below wing level.


Thanks, Dave


You are correct in stating 'not applicable' for the generation of supplements. Attached is a copy of my squadron's Tab D-4 from way back when I was the admin officer for my squadron in 2006.
Logged
Lt Col Charles E. (Chuck) Corway, CAP
Gill Robb Wilson Award (#2901 - 2011)
Amelia Earhart Award (#1257 - 1982) - C/Major (retired)
Billy Mitchell Award (#2375 - 1981)
One of three of CAP's active senior members on Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands!
(Don't ask me about forming an overseas squadron here... ain't gonna happen!)
KJ6GHO - NAR 45040
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,267

« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2017, 01:13:31 PM »

First three items from the D-4 ADMINISTRATION deals with properly managing the production and maintenance of unit specific regulations and forms... since units below wing level can't produce their own supplements to wing regulations, would the local/group admin officer just write in N/A?

Units can create their own forms, OIs, and similiar with proper approval and oversight of the next echelon, so the answer would be "Y/NA". Since you'd always comply and know the process but
currently have none.

The fourth item deals with keeping a formal file plan for regulations.  With ePublishing, I've downloaded and put in an electronic file, all the admin regulations I need to do my job.  I don't print these items out. 

You still have to have a "document" which indicates where everything is.  If your wing doesn't have a standard form, take a look at this:
http://ilwg.cap.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ilwgf310.doc as an example.  In my case, since the unit is 100% paperless, I imported
that document into GDocs, and the the "location" field is a Google-shortened link tot he area in the eFiles where the respective files
or information lives.  The exceptions in our case are Comms, Logisitics, and Safety which indicate "eservices- ORMS or SIRS", respectively.

Finally, I'm being asked if I back up all my electronic data.  I do, but to an external hard-drive.  Wondering if I should create an account with an online data storage that allows me to give other members have access to whatever I put in that file (currently, the admin officer works for the personnel officer, who has all the files, etc.).

Your system is your system, as long as you can justify it and show it works - the regs make no prescription.  Since our stuff is in the cloud, there no need
for a physical backup (Everyone rush up to the screen and yell APOCALYPSE! Believe me, if Google has an issue they can seamlessly and transparently
recover from, CAP personnel files will not be anyone's primary concern). However, in the interest of "not wanting to have the conversation" - I run
the Google Synch utility on a corporate laptop which does provide for a physical secondary backup.

Ideally, it would be great if someone could send me a copy of their D-4 ADMINISTRATION worksheet for units below wing level.

PM sent.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2017, 01:54:42 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,267

« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2017, 01:15:47 PM »

AlphaSigOU - the problem with that response sheet it that it is well outdated.

The new one: https://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/SUI_D4_Worksheet_MS_Admin_00B5DE54D7CA7.pdf

Is significantly different and shorter.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

EMT-83
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,762

« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2017, 01:44:02 PM »

Rather than just N/A, reference why in your response.

Per CAPRxxx, not applicable for units below Wing level. Head off the question before it's asked.
Logged
kwe1009
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 590

« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2017, 02:59:56 PM »

I would recommend against downloading regs and forms from NHQ.  You may miss an update announcement or a new reg or form gets published without an announcement.  Our Admin Officer kept a Google Doc listing the forms/regs associated with the duty position and the generic link to the NHQ pubs/forms site and the Wing's pub/forms site.  This will also protect you from a last minute change to any of those pubs/forms.  This actually happened last month during our Wing's CI.  An updated personnel reg was published in the middle of the inspection.  Since we didn't maintain any hard or soft copies we weren't dinged for having outdated regs.


Also regarding using Google Drive, OneDrive, etc.  If you are using the sync app to replicate the files to your computer then you have a defacto back up.  If more than one computer has the sync app installed and running then you have multiple copies.  I don't believe that Google, Microsoft, etc guarantee your data unless you are paying for the service so there is a slim possibility that something may happen and you lose data.  The odds of very low and by using the sync apps you completely avoid that.
Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 828

« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2017, 12:47:24 PM »

I have a semi-related question regarding SUIs:

Is it standard for the inspecting agency to have you fill out your checklists and submit them to them, as a self-evaluation?

I'm just on the receiving end, but it's not something I'm very clear on. My understanding is that I should review my checklist, and potential questions that would be asked, have my documentation ready, and hand it over upon request by the inspection team, not compile a package to send out.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,267

« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2017, 01:20:47 PM »

Is it standard for the inspecting agency to have you fill out your checklists and submit them to them, as a self-evaluation?

Yes, this is actually part of the inspection process per the regulations.

CAPR 123-3 Page 10
https://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R123_003_0285AB34DEED4.pdf
"(4) No later than 10 days prior to the inspection the subordinate unit commanders will
provide SUI checklist, unit details, data and other “deliverables,” as specified in the checklist
instructions using the eServices “CI documentation” storage location. The SUI begins with the
unit’s submission of required data."


Providing those deliverables in a timely manner is actually an inspection item, though
how you would close that if it were marked as a discrepancy is beyond me.

It also struck me, as I was finishing up our checklists, that the vast majority of information
requested and required is available in eServices, and could be provided with a well-written query.
In fact it's the kind of thing that could be run at any time to establish a unit's current compliance
level, or "To Dos" for new CC's.

My assumption is that this is what was envisioned by the "required", but "not implemented"
report mentioned below.

CAPR 123-3 Page 10
"(3) An eServices report used to help evaluate the group/unit will be run
approximately 30 days prior to the SUI by wing inspector general. The eServices report will be
located in the data storage location specified in the 60-day notification. "

Such a report, would certainly make the organization more efficient and Agile.

have my documentation ready, and hand it
over upon request by the inspection team, not compile a package to send out.

Many (most?) wings are increasingly doing their inspections in advance of the actual on-site date, and some in lieu of
one if there is nothing to inspect (say a small shared space, etc).  Checking documentation in advance, and
perhaps suggesting you are missing something should be part of the "Value-add" of the SUI.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2017, 01:27:42 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Paul Creed III
Forum Regular

Posts: 169
Unit: GLR-OH-254

« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2017, 02:17:20 PM »

I have a semi-related question regarding SUIs:

Is it standard for the inspecting agency to have you fill out your checklists and submit them to them, as a self-evaluation?

I'm just on the receiving end, but it's not something I'm very clear on. My understanding is that I should review my checklist, and potential questions that would be asked, have my documentation ready, and hand it over upon request by the inspection team, not compile a package to send out.

Your documentation needs to be submitted, along with the completed tab with all questions answered, into the IG module within eServices. Your assigned IG will review the submitted material and proceed further with any benchmarks, discrepancies, etc. Answering the questions on the tab via the upload process takes the place of an IG inspection team hanging out for several hours in-person. The in-person component is much less involved now as you'll note when inspected later on this month.
Logged
Lt Col Paul Creed III, CAP
Great Lakes Region Cyber Programs Officer
Ohio Wing Group 3 Commander
Tim Medeiros
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 707
Unit: AZ-001

« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2017, 10:04:30 PM »

<snip>

Providing those deliverables in a timely manner is actually an inspection item, though
how you would close that if it were marked as a discrepancy is beyond me.
<snip>
Per the Inspection Knowledgebase "Discrepancy is normally closed during SUI and documented in the SUI report"


In the reports AZWG puts out it reads as:
Quote
(A- Discrepancy): [##] (Question 7) Unit did not provide all checklist, unit details, data, other “deliverables” provided IAW CAPR 123-3 para 7a(1).
 - This discrepancy was verified corrected - discrepancy closed, no further action required.


EDIT:  Link to said knowledgebase in case anyone is curious, https://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/inspector_general/inspection-knowledge-base/
Logged
TIMOTHY R. MEDEIROS, Lt Col, CAP
Member, National IT Functional User Group
1577/2811
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,267

« Reply #10 on: March 02, 2017, 11:07:47 PM »

That probably should be an AOC at best, or possibly a higher HQ discrepancy, because someone isn't mentoring their
people.  Frankly "Closed during SUI..."  should be true for 1/2-3/4 of the items on the worksheets.

"Does the unit have an AEO?"

"No."

CC: "OK...goo...wait, what?"

I: "How...?!...next..."

I: "Is the AEO in the specialty track?"

CC: "No."

I: "OK, seriously, did you even look at these before you showed up here today?"

I've never understood the point of writing a discrepancy and requiring the whole remediation cycle on
something that the CC can fix and close before the IG leaves the building.  Where's the value-add in that?

No issue noting it in the report, leaving it as an AOC, etc., but a unit failing at that level, which includes the
next higher HQ failing as well, isn't going to get better by having even more busy work to, nor is the IG
going to be less overworked having to track discrepancies that are ultimately pointless.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2017, 11:11:42 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 828

« Reply #11 on: March 07, 2017, 11:40:28 PM »

I have a semi-related question regarding SUIs:

Is it standard for the inspecting agency to have you fill out your checklists and submit them to them, as a self-evaluation?

I'm just on the receiving end, but it's not something I'm very clear on. My understanding is that I should review my checklist, and potential questions that would be asked, have my documentation ready, and hand it over upon request by the inspection team, not compile a package to send out.

Your documentation needs to be submitted, along with the completed tab with all questions answered, into the IG module within eServices. Your assigned IG will review the submitted material and proceed further with any benchmarks, discrepancies, etc. Answering the questions on the tab via the upload process takes the place of an IG inspection team hanging out for several hours in-person. The in-person component is much less involved now as you'll note when inspected later on this month.

Gotcha.

There was a lot of bad gouge floating around from the past, and as you may know, a change in leadership can bring about a lot of "I'm not really sure, but historically..."

I'm just somewhat surprised, well perhaps less-than-impressed, at the level of detail (or lack thereof) on the inspection workbooks. I'm a safety and compliance auditor in my private sector career, so I'm quite familiar with industry norms for auditing to various regulations and standards. When I saw a list of three Cadet Programs questions, including some of the most minimal stuff to touch on, I was very taken aback by the fact that what I would consider to be such crucial points to insure the regulatory safety nets exist aren't there.

So I guess my question would be: What is the big to-do behind the scenes that the unit doesn't see, and how is this actually ensuring compliance?

Our SUI has me less-than-anxious by any means. I'm merely perplexed at the lack of detail that goes into an inspection (Yes, I get that the scope of an inspection could be a full-time process, and in a volunteer organization, that can be a role hard to fill; I would still expect a more thorough look at the real meat of common areas of non-compliance, not stuff that is virtually impossible to prove).

Did the unit submit CAPF 54s for High Adventure Activities?
"Show me your training calendar. What activities were conducted at this event? Do you have a schedule for this event?"

Present to me the evidence that your unit follows each of the safety protocols and minimum training standards in 52-16.

Then again, maybe that's me going overboard.


That probably should be an AOC at best, or possibly a higher HQ discrepancy, because someone isn't mentoring their
people.  Frankly "Closed during SUI..."  should be true for 1/2-3/4 of the items on the worksheets.

"Does the unit have an AEO?"

"No."

CC: "OK...goo...wait, what?"

I: "How...?!...next..."

I: "Is the AEO in the specialty track?"

CC: "No."

I: "OK, seriously, did you even look at these before you showed up here today?"

I've never understood the point of writing a discrepancy and requiring the whole remediation cycle on
something that the CC can fix and close before the IG leaves the building.  Where's the value-add in that?

No issue noting it in the report, leaving it as an AOC, etc., but a unit failing at that level, which includes the
next higher HQ failing as well, isn't going to get better by having even more busy work to, nor is the IG
going to be less overworked having to track discrepancies that are ultimately pointless.

I have to disagree on the discrepancy. Even when I conduct an audit, sure, we find something that can be fixed on the spot. So we issue an audit finding that warrants a corrective action, and the auditee documents on the record that the immediate action taken was to correct it on the spot. I still need a root cause, and I'll schedule a 90-day follow-up evaluation to ensure the fix it sustained and not just something that will go back to being ignored when I walk out. It's all about documenting the finding. Yes, I have the discretion to treat it like a UFO---"I saw something, but I'm not quite sure what it was."

"That item wasn't tagged. Why?"
"Because we just got it delivered this past week."
"Okay, just make sure you tag it as soon as practical. I'll mark it down as new equipment and you're in the process of taking inventory."

"That item wasn't tagged. Why?"
"Shoot. We meant to. Ugh, we'll get that fixed."
"Okay, I'll issue a finding for it. Just go ahead and tag it before I'm out the door, and we'll mark the correction closed."


I think inspections are very much misunderstood as pass/fail. Failures, from the auditor side, are the result of neglect, not mistakes. But not having the staff to maintain compliance doesn't excuse that you still need to maintain compliance, especially if it's a safety critical matter.

"Why haven't we been conducting our quality control process?"
"We just don't have the staff to do it."
"So, you're telling me that because you don't have enough people, we're okay with letting a few unchecked items go through, so long as we catch up down the road?"

Document it. Let them fix it. Work with them to help put together a plan of action.

The problem I'm seeing with the SUI as I pointed out above, and this isn't a dig at anyone in particular, is that I see CAP looking into areas that are well outside what you see as common issues.

Is the on-line CAP Hazard Report used to suggest ways to reduce operational risk to members and does the unit close the loop on all reported hazards?

Okay, that's not a mandated item; that's a recommended practice, and only mandated if reports are actually submitted. Why does this not address compiling the ORM worksheets instead, making sure that ORMs are actually being conducted? Show me the documentation that supports it.


This is the auditor in me going, "What exactly am I looking at, and why are you missing about 100 more things that you should be looking at?"
Logged
RogueLeader
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,624
Unit: Of measure

« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2017, 01:06:47 PM »

In regards to the online hazard reporting, so long as you can describe in detail on how to utilize the module, the checklist says that is an acceptable meeting of the standard.
Logged
<redacted>

GRW 3340
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,267

« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2017, 01:48:56 PM »

That probably should be an AOC at best, or possibly a higher HQ discrepancy, because someone isn't mentoring their
people.  Frankly "Closed during SUI..."  should be true for 1/2-3/4 of the items on the worksheets.

"Does the unit have an AEO?"

"No."

CC: "OK...goo...wait, what?"

I: "How...?!...next..."

I: "Is the AEO in the specialty track?"

CC: "No."

I: "OK, seriously, did you even look at these before you showed up here today?"

I've never understood the point of writing a discrepancy and requiring the whole remediation cycle on
something that the CC can fix and close before the IG leaves the building.  Where's the value-add in that?

No issue noting it in the report, leaving it as an AOC, etc., but a unit failing at that level, which includes the
next higher HQ failing as well, isn't going to get better by having even more busy work to, nor is the IG
going to be less overworked having to track discrepancies that are ultimately pointless.

I have to disagree on the discrepancy. Even when I conduct an audit, sure, we find something that can be fixed on the spot. So we issue an audit finding that warrants a corrective action, and the auditee documents on the record that the immediate action taken was to correct it on the spot. I still need a root cause, and I'll schedule a 90-day follow-up evaluation to ensure the fix it sustained and not just something that will go back to being ignored when I walk out. It's all about documenting the finding. Yes, I have the discretion to treat it like a UFO---"I saw something, but I'm not quite sure what it was."

An IG, doesn't need a root cause, that's a command responsibility, same for a 90-day followup, there's no allowance for that within the SUI program (that I'm aware of),
and would place the IG in between the CC and the next higher HQ as a psudo commander with no actual authority or responsibility.
It also pre-supposes that the Inspection Program is, in fact, "value add", and not purely the compliance exercise that it is many (most?) wings.  By far a significant number
of SUIs and CIs are completed at the last minute by the bare minimum people needed to accomplish the goal and check the box.  It's not supposed to be that way, but there you go.

Creating an actual discrepancy will then require a response plan, remediation, responses posted in eServices, and more administrivia no one cares about.
A unit sitting for an SUI that doesn't have the program knowledge enough to appoint "someone" as an AEO, even just the CC, and drop them into the
track as "none" to comply with the reg, is being ignored by the next HQ, is being led by people lacking either experience or inititiave, and adding more
make-work isn't going to fix that, but it might be the last straw on losing a CC and folding another unit, neither of which CAP can afford anymore. BTDT.

An AOC and a marginal?  Absolutely.  The grades are meaningless anyway, but at least it calls out the issue without creating more work and make things worse.
Because odds are pretty high that any unit that has simple administrative discrepancies like "no AEO" is going to let them sit open and ignored for months until the unit
is threatened with, or shut down, at which time things sometimes go sideways fast.

I think inspections are very much misunderstood as pass/fail. Failures, from the auditor side, are the result of neglect, not mistakes. But not having the staff to maintain compliance doesn't excuse that you still need to maintain compliance, especially if it's a safety critical matter.

I agree 100%, however, since CAP has no power to compel action by those disinterested, nor the ability to requisition additional personnel from higher HQ, adding a bunch of
busy work everyone knows is just that, isn't going to help, it actually makes it worse.

Document it. Let them fix it. Work with them to help put together a plan of action.

Again this presupposes the "value-add" rehtoric, and also to some extent usurps the next higher HQ.  The IGs are there to collect data
and document the current state of the unit.  If your wing has the manpower and command imperative to allow the IGs
to actually assist unit staffers on a pro-active basis, good on 'ye, but I would hazard you are in the minority.  Many wings aren't even able to maintain
their own CI's in compliance because their inspections programs are so lacking in staff and resources, forcing their SUIs to fall months
behind or not be done at all.

I know exactly how to take the IG program and change it from the root canal it is today into the value-add role it is intended for.
Sadly, I don't scale, and the manpower required to do that doesn't exist anymore (if it ever did), and would take 10+ years to
develop if we started today (also no one is listening).

Like far too many things in CAP, something which was intended to assist Commanders and insure everyone is on the right track,
has been reduced to the lowest common denominator and the lawyers, accountant, and actuaries are running the show.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Pages: [1] Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: Question for Admin Officers who've Participated in Recent SUI
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.267 seconds with 20 queries.
click here to email me