Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 18, 2018, 11:48:55 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

 1 
 on: Today at 11:25:43 AM 
Started by abdsp51 - Last post by stillamarine
I haven't read the book yet, but i've got it on order. I know a couple of retired cops who have been involved in responding to similar incidents who want to borrow the book afterI'm done with it.

The third tragedy in all this is the way the Air Force treated Brown post-shooting. The USAF Security Police provided nothing in the way of support for defenders involved in on-duty shootings like that found in civilian law enforcement and IMO is further evidence of critical leadership failures going on at the time. I'm sure he touches on this in the book but I know Mas Ayoob (the guy who wrote his foreward) made this a major issue in many of his writings on the subject.

I hate to tell you but unfortunately there is very little support for civilian law enforcement involved in an on-duty shooting. In fact they are often treated worse than suspects. I have seen this first hand. There is a reason that law enforcement suicides greatly outnumber officers killed by suspects. I have be doing a lot of research on these subjects as part of my doctoral studies.
I look forward to you publishing. It is an important and neglected subject.

It'll probably be awhile. I'm working on getting legislation in place in Alabama to protect peer support workers. Hopefully this legislative session.

 2 
 on: Today at 10:38:09 AM 
Started by cobra6987 - Last post by Larry Mangum
OI and Supplements , have always been restricted as to who could create them and who could not.  A good number of Wings because of the approvals necessary to issue one, started generating Policy letters instead, to get around this and to avoid CI findings. Frankly, I suspect that this is an attempt by NHQ to reign that abuse in.

In regards to SOP's, they are not suppose to be supplements or operating instructions, but rather to address things not covered by the regulations. An example on one could be the procedure for securing the squadron building after the meeting and could cover such items as where the trash gets empties, checking the doors and windows, etc.  Notice not. something that is already covered by a regulation.

NIN's example of the wing hat, is not a good example of an SOP, as that would have been covered under CAPM39-1, where it says a Wing Commander can approve a wing hat. Same for the local award, that should have also been covered in a supplement.

The problem that has been created by this change is the level that it takes to get approval. CAPR 60-3, CAPR60-1 always for example always required going all the way to NHQ for approval. Not sure approving a wing hat, should require the same level of approval.

 3 
 on: Today at 09:28:24 AM 
Started by cobra6987 - Last post by Nick
“SOP” doesn’t really exist in CAP. An SOP is a publication (well, a procedure) that is not authorized by 1-2. So, considering that and the whole thing about supplements and OIs, another option is:

Using uniforms as an example, 39-1 gives unit commanders the authority to “ensure uniform items are consistent and standardized throughout the organization, and designate the appropriate uniform authorized in this manual to be worn at unit activities and events.“ To communicate to members what those designated uniforms are, the commander may issue a memorandum to all unit members titled “prescribed uniform for unit activities and events” with all the parameters mentioned in a previous post, with an effective date and expiration date, citing 39-1 as the authority. That way it’s not a “publication”, but it is a written delivery of the commander’s intent and has the same force and effect that an OI to 39-1 would have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 4 
 on: Today at 08:32:34 AM 
Started by cobra6987 - Last post by TheSkyHornet
This is one of my pet peeves, I hate hearing "it's just the way we've done it" instead of being able to point to something and say "This is why"

But, as a squadron commander, I can't print something that says "On this night, we wear blues, on these nights we wear BDUs, We wear BDU/ABU sleeves rolled up from this date to this date, and down from that date to that date, if the weather is X or Y, meeting cancellation is based on Z" because each one of them is a supplement or operating instruction, which is subject to approval from higher headquarters, up to NHQ in some instances.

So the only thing we have is "This is how we've always done it."

And yes, I did get a finding for it in an SUI several years back.

That would come from M39-1 under Chapter 2 in determine the appropriate attire for an activity.


Again, I think people aren't understanding where their authorities to make SOPs come from (and they come from various sources at that). I mean, the Cadet Program Management regulation is specific that meetings will be structured to ensure minimum contact hours, and that the meetings are flexible in their design to meet needs (the same with staff assignments, etc.). So your SOPs are a delegated authority from the regulation. What you can't do is start throwing out random processes for conducting inventories or using special tests to promote your members.

I think we're reading way too much into this.

 5 
 on: Today at 08:27:09 AM 
Started by Cicero - Last post by TheSkyHornet

 6 
 on: Today at 06:11:10 AM 
Started by cobra6987 - Last post by cobra6987
This is one of my pet peeves, I hate hearing "it's just the way we've done it" instead of being able to point to something and say "This is why"

But, as a squadron commander, I can't print something that says "On this night, we wear blues, on these nights we wear BDUs, We wear BDU/ABU sleeves rolled up from this date to this date, and down from that date to that date, if the weather is X or Y, meeting cancellation is based on Z" because each one of them is a supplement or operating instruction, which is subject to approval from higher headquarters, up to NHQ in some instances.

So the only thing we have is "This is how we've always done it."

And yes, I did get a finding for it in an SUI several years back.

This is part of the problem. NHQ should only be concerned that we are accomplishing a goal, not how we accomplish it. That is, as long as it's in a safe, legal, and within some parameter. We can't motivate cadets to run faster by having a tiger chase them after all. I also have a problem that you as a commander can't make that kind of call without NHQ approving a wing supplement. I'm okay with sending a copy of an SOP or memo to the group or wing, but I don't see a reason to do OI/Supps for everything.

I personally would have just said your call to have sleeves up or down is you practicing ORM on that day :-D

 7 
 on: Today at 05:20:35 AM 
Started by cobra6987 - Last post by Slim
This is one of my pet peeves, I hate hearing "it's just the way we've done it" instead of being able to point to something and say "This is why"

But, as a squadron commander, I can't print something that says "On this night, we wear blues, on these nights we wear BDUs, We wear BDU/ABU sleeves rolled up from this date to this date, and down from that date to that date, if the weather is X or Y, meeting cancellation is based on Z" because each one of them is a supplement or operating instruction, which is subject to approval from higher headquarters, up to NHQ in some instances.

So the only thing we have is "This is how we've always done it."

And yes, I did get a finding for it in an SUI several years back.

 8 
 on: Today at 04:07:31 AM 
Started by cobra6987 - Last post by cobra6987
I'm not so sure this is restricting Commanders from local SOPs as perhaps (to my interpretation of the OP) it is being assumed.

That is how I am reading it since Paragraph 8 says "Regulations, supplements and operating instructions are directive publications. They prescribe actions necessary to meet the requirements of law or policy" and is then back up by 8.3.1 saying "The use of any document other than a supplement or OI to direct requirements or procedures at or below the region level is prohibited"

Since SOP's typically say something WILL be done, it becomes directive in nature, and not allowed. This is my main concern. How are local commanders supposed to fulfill their obligations in 20-1 if the very means to do so have been pulled from under them?


Some units have so many SOPs that don't even make sense, and do contradict the regulations.

I have seen this too during some SUI inspections I've done. Typically it is just ignorance of the regulation and not deliberate disregard. I take that time as a learning opportunity to steer them back into the confines of regulation.

Actually, it's about time. There is no reason for all of the home-grown rules that used to be so common. Follow the program as it exists, or jump through lots of hoops to make your own rules.

Sounds good to me.

I understand where you're coming from but I disagree. The regulations coming out of national should essentially say "This is the goal" and then leave the Region/Wing/Group/Squadron commanders to find a way, that best suits them, to meet that goal. This was another item that the re-writes were supposed to accomplish due to us starting to regulate ourselves out of existence. 


Or, whats more likely to happen is that people will just do "undocumented things" for their local procedures instead of jumping thru hoops.  They'll rely on the easier "tribal knowledge" rather than the hoops of doing it right.

This is one of my pet peeves, I hate hearing "it's just the way we've done it" instead of being able to point to something and say "This is why"

 9 
 on: Yesterday at 11:11:00 PM 
Started by abdsp51 - Last post by Cicero
I haven't read the book yet, but i've got it on order. I know a couple of retired cops who have been involved in responding to similar incidents who want to borrow the book afterI'm done with it.

The third tragedy in all this is the way the Air Force treated Brown post-shooting. The USAF Security Police provided nothing in the way of support for defenders involved in on-duty shootings like that found in civilian law enforcement and IMO is further evidence of critical leadership failures going on at the time. I'm sure he touches on this in the book but I know Mas Ayoob (the guy who wrote his foreward) made this a major issue in many of his writings on the subject.

I hate to tell you but unfortunately there is very little support for civilian law enforcement involved in an on-duty shooting. In fact they are often treated worse than suspects. I have seen this first hand. There is a reason that law enforcement suicides greatly outnumber officers killed by suspects. I have be doing a lot of research on these subjects as part of my doctoral studies.
I look forward to you publishing. It is an important and neglected subject.

 10 
 on: Yesterday at 10:53:03 PM 
Started by abdsp51 - Last post by stillamarine
I haven't read the book yet, but i've got it on order. I know a couple of retired cops who have been involved in responding to similar incidents who want to borrow the book afterI'm done with it.

The third tragedy in all this is the way the Air Force treated Brown post-shooting. The USAF Security Police provided nothing in the way of support for defenders involved in on-duty shootings like that found in civilian law enforcement and IMO is further evidence of critical leadership failures going on at the time. I'm sure he touches on this in the book but I know Mas Ayoob (the guy who wrote his foreward) made this a major issue in many of his writings on the subject.

I hate to tell you but unfortunately there is very little support for civilian law enforcement involved in an on-duty shooting. In fact they are often treated worse than suspects. I have seen this first hand. There is a reason that law enforcement suicides greatly outnumber officers killed by suspects. I have be doing a lot of research on these subjects as part of my doctoral studies.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.318 seconds with 20 queries.