Regulation: Either they're to be followed or...

[BuckeyeDEJ]

OK, so enough railing about it elsewhere. We're not following our own regulations, a violation of the core values and a great way to ensure anarchy. Call it beating a dead horse, but this has never (that I know of) been directly addressed on CAPTalk.

—Interim change letters have a shelf life of six months. If applicable regulations aren't updated to reflect the ICL within that time, the ICL is no longer policy. As a result...

— The corporate service uniform was adopted by ICL but technically is dead.

— Reverse American flags on the BDU are also legally dead.

— CAPR 900-2 has not been updated, and no ICLs issued, addressing use of the MAJCOM emblem on vehicles and other collateral.

— CAPR 20-1 is apparently not being followed in many units, including at wing and region levels.

Feel free to add to this list. There's more, but those are off the top of my head. Seems the only place where regs are even halfway maintained is in ops.

Point is, we either play by ALL the rules or we play by none. You can't pick and choose. This is a matter that has to be cleaned up at CAP's highest levels, lest our culture continue devolving.

[lordmonar]

Other then railing about it......what are we going to do?

[davedove]

This is the applicable paragraph from CAPR 5-4:

b. ICLs outlining immediate policies that are intended to become permanent shall be incorporated into an appropriate publication within 90 days of the date the letter was issued.

The way I read this, it doesn't mean that the ICL expires after 90 days.  After all, the change is intended to be permanent, so why would it expire.

However, this does require the change to be incorporated into a new reg change within 90 days.  The way I read it is the change is still in effect, but National is in violation of CAPR 5-4 because they haven't updated the reg.

But yeah, what are we going to do besides complain?

[Eclipse]

Come on guys...

Much like a an answer from Microsoft Technical Support - the above is factually accurate, but of little actual use.

There's no point to this.  It is what it is, and the horse is so dead as to already have had its carbon atoms reabsorbed back into the circle of life twice, killed again, and compressed into a diamond.

[FW]

^

There is absolutely nothing "we" can do about this.  CAP 5-4, as all our "regulations", is for the members only.  Corporate employees listen to the regulations and instructions governing their employment.  They are supervised by the executive director who , may  have other priorities for them.

My suggestion is to just file any ICL's with a copy of the affected reg. 
Oh, wait.... eservices already does this.....

[RiverAux]

See all they need to do is sign an ICL repealing the ICL time limits and everyone will be happy.

[Cecil DP]

Other then railing about it......what are we going to do?

The National Board (including the NEC) has been doing this for years, well before the ICL glut came into
being. The correct interpetation of the ICL's should be void unless incorporated into the regs within 90 days. With all the regs being electronic a group from the applicable community (CP, PD, OPS, ES, etc) should be able to make the changes and present them to the EX well before the 90 day deadline.
The membership should be requiring that the Board members be accountable for ensuring the updates are issued expeditiously. Otherwise we are being governed by fiat and whim.

[Eclipse]

You have one recourse if you're really concerned about it.

Refuse to comply, be denied access to an activity, qualification, or promotion, and then file an IG complaint with the basis of your complaint that the applicable ICL, etc., no longer applies.

You can then work your way up the chain, encountering and responding to the same question(s) at each level, and if you're lucky, you'll be heard by the Supreme Court of the Civil Air Patrol, in which case your complaint will be upheld, and they will simply reissue the ICL.

Rinse Repeat.

The mere fact that people keep bringing this up like it was "news" is somewhat insulting to our leadership who I'm sure are well aware of the situation and continue to operate as they have for a decade.

[CAPSGT]

interesting to note that the 2007 version of 5-4 (which is much revised from the 2005 version) omits the sentence of "However, it remains in effect until rescinded, superseded, or replaced by a publication." which was found in the 2005 version.

[Eclipse]

And as to CAPR 20-1, with the exception of CC, SE, FIN, and now AEO (yeah, I know, read the new reg), 20-1 is a suggestion, not a prescription.

The SUI process is already in place to insure compliance with the minimums and anything else is command prerogative as to whether its important or not.

[FW]

The membership should be requiring that the Board members be accountable for ensuring the updates are issued expeditiously. Otherwise we are being governed by fiat and whim.

The NB/NEC does not write regulations.  The "regs" are written by the appropriate directorate at NHQ.  It IS the way things have been done for quite some time now.  Only the Board of Governors has the authority to hold the NHQ corporate staff accountable (and they have much bigger items to deal with than what goes on the uniform or how we do flight releases).

There are much better things to complain about than this, IMHO.  In spite of all of our short commings,  we've managed to make it for 68 years and, I think we will make it for another 68. 

[lordmonar]

Other then railing about it......what are we going to do?

The National Board (including the NEC) has been doing this for years, well before the ICL glut came into
being. The correct interpetation of the ICL's should be void unless incorporated into the regs within 90 days. With all the regs being electronic a group from the applicable community (CP, PD, OPS, ES, etc) should be able to make the changes and present them to the EX well before the 90 day deadline.
The membership should be requiring that the Board members be accountable for ensuring the updates are issued expeditiously. Otherwise we are being governed by fiat and whim.

"the membership should be requiring".......last time I checked....we follow orders not five them.  Who would I complain to?  Do I corner Gen Courter in the hall one day and say "you are not following orders!"?  And for what?  Does the fact that no one has included all the changes into a reg yet affect my ability to do my job?  Sure a little....but not enough to get my pants into a wad.  If you are so gung-ho on seeing the changes....why not volunteer to update the PDF for them?    I'm sure the national staff would gladly take post them for you.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

The leaders in CAP take the same membership oaths we do — to follow orders, to follow regulations. So when the Powers That Be don't follow their own rules, why should anyone else? The moral authority disappears, and leadership by example becomes leadership by bad example. The rules apply to everyone, whether they're slick-sleeved or wear a minor constellation on their shoulders.

That's my gripe about regulating by 90-day letter with no followup. It's pretty black-and-white, really.

In the meantime, I'll continue following orders, and hope the Powers That Be will realize the message they're sending us.

[Short Field]

So the only issue is that NHQ, following their manpower cut a couple of years ago, is unable to update the regulations within 90 days of a ICL.   I am really surprised we can exist as a organization....

[BuckeyeDEJ]

So the only issue is that NHQ, following their manpower cut a couple of years ago, is unable to update the regulations within 90 days of a ICL.   I am really surprised we can exist as a organization....

Does it have to be the NHQ staff that writes the regs? Why can't it be done by members of the various advisory groups? After all, they're the CAP members who will adhere to the regs, so they'll best know how it all works.

[Short Field]

However National gets it done should work.  But it is not a show stopper.  By the way, I am a SAC trained killer - SACR 55-7 Vol II was the bible and each paragraph had a HQ SAC OPR you could called if you had a question or wanted a change.  CAP is not SAC...   

[Cecil DP]

Other then railing about it......what are we going to do?

"the membership should be requiring".......last time I checked....we follow orders not five them.  Who would I complain to?  Do I corner Gen Courter in the hall one day and say "you are not following orders!"?  And for what?  Does the fact that no one has included all the changes into a reg yet affect my ability to do my job?  Sure a little....but not enough to get my pants into a wad.  If you are so gung-ho on seeing the changes....why not volunteer to update the PDF for them?    I'm sure the national staff would gladly take post them for you.

Accountability is a two way street.  If they NB puts a policy or change into effect, it should be promulgated and put into the regulations ASAP, not put into an ICL(which expires in 60 days) indefinetly. As stated in the original post, there are people who are experts in the various fields covered by ICL's who could put them into regualations or rewrite them as needed, as was done with the Uniform Reg several years ago.
I do appreciate the use of the Nuremburg Defense, in justifying not questioning any of the leaders of CAP. But yes, it is her job as Chairwoman and National Commander to make sure things get done.

[Ned]

Accountability is a two way street.  If they NB puts a policy or change into effect, it should be promulgated and put into the regulations ASAP, not put into an ICL(which expires in 60 days) indefinetly.

Yup, I think that is the consensus we have arrived at every time we have discussed this here on CT.

As stated in the original post, there are people who are experts in the various fields covered by ICL's who could put them into regualations or rewrite them as needed, as was done with the Uniform Reg several years ago.

Hmm, given how well that has turned out, I'm not sure this is the best argument for allowing volunteers in the field to draft regs.

I do appreciate the use of the Nuremburg Defense, in justifying not questioning any of the leaders of CAP. But yes, it is her job as Chairwoman and National Commander to make sure things get done.

Really?

It is Gen Courter's job to make sure the regs are updated?

The regs written by the corporate staff that are not under her command and control?

She can't even hire or fire the Executive Director.  Only the BoG can do that.

Why aren't you complaining about them?

Come to think of it, why are you complaining at all?  Do you really not know what rules and regulations you are expected to follow? 

Sure it would be nice if the Corporate Team had more time to write regs, circulate drafts, rewrite, post for public comment, rewrite again and publish.

I suppose it would be easier if we hadn't laid a big hunk of them off.

In the big scheme of CAP, this just seems like a relatively low priority.  Indeed, if I had spare time for corporate employees, I think I have better things for them to work on than rewriting regulations.  Things like NCSA support, supporting the membership by processing awards and PD paperwork, updating the website, working with our CAP-USAF partners on pilot projects, staying in touch with our members by traveling to wing and region conferences, answer Congressional inquiries, etc.

But if you think it is more important for them to rewrite perfectly clear ICLs into perfectly clear ICLs, we could certainly pull them off some other projects.


Ned Lee
NHQ Apologist

[flyguy06]

This thread isntparticularly interesting to me but Ned's sentence about how gen Courter cant fire the Exec Dir struck my attention. i never knew that . Not that I want him fired. I dont really getinto CAP atthat level. All is well as faras I am concerned.

I am a member of a a few other 501(c) 3's where they have a volunteer President (equivilnt to the Natinal C) and a full time Exec Dir and staff. I guess I always assumed the Pres could fire the Exec Dir. Guess not. No isssue here.Just excited I learned something today

[PHall]

Ned, it is part of the General's job to make sure her headquarters complies with their own regulations.
After all, it's part of her job to relieve Region Commander's who fail to follow the regs. Why should the National Headquarters be any different?

If the National Headquarters can not or will not comply then the IG needs to be instructed to not penalize the subordinate units when they fail to comply with the same regs during the Complience Inspections.

In this age of electronic publishing a change to a regulation/manual can be written, coordinated and published with nothing more then some keystrokes on a keyboard. So the "excuse" of not enough time available just won't wash.