Should cadets be allowed to conduct SUI interviews

[Al Sayre]

NO

[Nathan]

Will the cadet be given the power to dictate to the DCC of a unit what he/she is doing wrong and must fix? An inspection is pretty useless without the authority to fix what is wrong, especially as demonstrated by this board the general attitude of senior members toward the ideas of a cadet.

NO member of an SUI team has that power.  They report back to the IG who reports to the Wing Commander who has the authority to do just about anything if the squadron doesn't fix the problems identified in the SUI as they are supposed to.

Alright, fair enough.

Although, I do think that my original point stands. While I have never doubted that a higher ranking cadet has quite a bit that he/she could contribute to the cadet program at higher echelons, I still think that if there is anything that a cadet COULD be doing that practices new skills instead of rehashing old inspection skills, then I would lean toward that direction. As I mentioned, I did a TON of different kinds of inspections as a cadet, and while I have never conducted an SUI, I am not quite sure how it would be a whole lot different from any other inspection.

I agree that no inspection is as easy as just checking off boxes. The key is having the background and expertise to know how to judge when someone is found in the gray area. This is even true for simple uniform inspections. I remember during my first uniform inspection, I found that I was not nearly as knowledgeable about things like uniform creases as I should have been. I didn't know nearly anything about the female blues uniform or hair requirements. I had no standard by which to judge the shine on a person's boots. I didn't know if the cutouts had to be shined, or if dull ones were okay. What about that weirdly-sized font on the CAP name tape? With time and experience, I learned to do an inspection in fifteen seconds per cadet, and could answer these questions.

The point is that I think a cadet COULD do this inspection, but like any inspection, it requires experience and knowledge enough to work through gray or lesser-known areas. ANY inspection is like that. I know for a fact that many seniors can't conduct a uniform inspection (or wear a uniform properly in the first place). Mainly, this is because the cadet program focuses a lot more on uniform wear than the typical senior program does.

So I don't think it's a matter of cadets being cadets, and that's why they can't do it. I think it's just a matter of different levels of knowledge in different areas, and until someone can explain how an SUI is going to provide some sort of extra skill or knowledge that would help a cadet progress in the program more than has already been taught by doing other sorts of inspections, I still am not sure why it would be worth the time necessary for the cadet to prepare adequately for the role.

[Hawk200]

So I don't think it's a matter of cadets being cadets, and that's why they can't do it. I think it's just a matter of different levels of knowledge in different areas, and until someone can explain how an SUI is going to provide some sort of extra skill or knowledge that would help a cadet progress in the program more than has already been taught by doing other sorts of inspections, I still am not sure why it would be worth the time necessary for the cadet to prepare adequately for the role.

Cadets are not trained for Inspector taskings, it's not included in the Cadet Program. They need to focus on their own progression in that program, and complete it. Specialty track training is not a focus for cadets, and should not be.

An SUI is only part of what the Inspector program is about. It requires familiarity with the sections being inspected, to include the specialty tracks required for the job, regulations applicable, coordination between the unit level position and higher levels, and an idea of the big picture. How many cadets are familiar with a single specialty track? Now, how many have expertise in multiple tracks?

Pulling out one part and farming it out to whomever you feel can do it creates problems. Cadets should focus on their studies, and not be concerned with things that aren't part of them. Let cadets be cadets.

Many people have great confidence in the abilities and aptitude of our cadets. That's a good thing, but it's not enough.

[Ned]

Cadets are not trained for Inspector taskings, it's not included in the Cadet Program.

Cadets can be assigned to serve as an assistant to any senior member position.  And cadets are required to complete a number of Staff Duty Analyses studying senior member positions as they progress through the program.  Although none of the current SDAs are for the Inspector position, cadets are always welcome to study and assist where possible with inspector duties.

We can now continue to debate this subject on a theoretical basis.  AFAIK, no cadets have served on CI or SAV teams in a primary role in the modern history of CAP.

(I can't be sure if they have ever served in a SUI situation, but it is certainly not commonplace.)

[heliodoc]

I still stand by my assertion(s) that cadets could be "used" on SUI's as long as they remained quiet and did NO inspecting of a unit.

Cadets on SAV's and SUI's will not happen any time soon

After being through a couple of SUI's in two different Wings......

I see no special skills in conducting a SUI other than being on IG types or some kind of assistant to someone conducting them.  Biggest skill is not coming across as  some RM type thinking that this is some kind of 5th Army ARMS inspection

I have been through a NUMBER of Army ARMS (12+)  inspections that are FAAAAAAR more complex than any CAP SUI

Surely there's alot of "planning" for CAP SUI's.....but after chasing a checklist and "inspecting and looking" over continuity books for each department.... Specialty Tracks?  I am sure that many a SUI "Team" does not know everything about Specialty Tracks  and I bet even FEWER know that CAP still mentions the 55 series in the Stan Eval stuff.  Granted, what's that got to do with anything...   

There is an old saying.........that I saw on many Army MX offices...."It's so easy, a caveman could do it!!"

[lordmonar]

Cadets are not trained for Inspector taskings, it's not included in the Cadet Program.

Cadets can be assigned to serve as an assistant to any senior member position.  And cadets are required to complete a number of Staff Duty Analyses studying senior member positions as they progress through the program.  Although none of the current SDAs are for the Inspector position, cadets are always welcome to study and assist where possible with inspector duties.

We can now continue to debate this subject on a theoretical basis.  AFAIK, no cadets have served on CI or SAV teams in a primary role in the modern history of CAP.

(I can't be sure if they have ever served in a SUI situation, but it is certainly not commonplace.)

+1

[Hawk200]

There is an old saying.........that I saw on many Army MX offices...."It's so easy, a caveman could do it!!"

It's not the caveman's place to do it. SUI's are conducted by Inspectors, and are not the place to use a cadet because you have a spare one.

Cadets are not trained to perform Inspector duties, and should not be. It's not an "anyone can do it" job. It's a job that is supposed to be performed by those trained and appointed to do so. Anyone else doesn't belong, regardless of whether or not they're a cadet. This isn't about cadet ability.

Besides, a cadet remaining quiet and not performing inspection isn't being used at all. SUI's are not where training is to take place.

Theoreticals are a waste of time. "Could be", "what ifs", and "I don't see why not" are not legitimate reasons to do something. They're fantasies, plain and simple.

[ZigZag911]

As a team member, no way.

However, when I had a group some years ago, we would always interview the cadet leadership (C/CC, C/CV/, C/1SGT) as part of the SUI focused on cadet program & activities.

Really?

Which page or section is that?  What, specifically, did you ask them and where did you note the responses?
I don't recall seeing anywhere in the SUI guide that gives the inspection team carte blanche. 

You ask the questions on the page, note the answers, and take your leave.

Really? You do?

CAPM 20-1, position description of Group CC:

"Be aware of accomplishments, problems, and degree of compliance by subordinate units with policies and directives through a system of inspections, reports, and staff visits. Inform the wing commander of progress toward achievement of objectives, notable accomplishments, problem areas, and other matters of interest."


From CAPR 123-3 1(a)  (emphasis is mine):
1. General. Assessments are a responsibility of command. CAP commanders must continuously evaluate organizational readiness, efficiency and effectiveness. The inspection system provides the commander with a credible, independent assessment process to measure capability of assigned resources. The Bylaws of the Civil Air Patrol, Sections 10 and 23, and the Statement of Work for the Civil Air Patrol authorize the assessment of CAP units.
a. Items subject to review include, but are not limited to the following:
(1) Implementation of policies, procedures, and regulations established by the Board of Governors, the Air Force, the National Executive Committee, the National Board, and National Headquarters.
(2) Management of personnel, corporate resources, and CAP programs.
(3) Compliance with CAP directives to include acquisition, control, use, and disposition of Department of Defense (DoD) excess property.
(4) Financial management and controls, accounting,and general fiscal responsibility.

An SUI is an opportunity for the more experienced individuals who ordinarily comprise the inspection team to listen to unit members, share their experience and expertise, and convey the members' concerns, attitudes, and challenges (as well as those impacting the unit as a whole, of course).

Ask the questions, note the answers, leave?!? What a tragic missed opportunity to help CAP personnel and squadrons! Indeed, what a waste of everyone's time...we may as well hire census takers to conduct CAP inspections, for all the knowledge required of inspectors (let alone shared by them) by your method.

[Eclipse]

You are confusing the Group CC's job with the IG's job.  They are neither the same person nor the same job.

The SUI team's job is to ask the questions, note the answers and leave, not to offer their $ .02 on every nuance of every question or issue.

IG's and SUI teams observe and report.  Period.  The body they are inspecting for is then charged with remediation.

In situations where the next higher HQ staff or commander is part of the inspection team, that is a different story (I said that.  Remember its OK to actually read the threads you respond to).  However that is not always the case, as many wings inspect their units directly, and others don't have groups.

The passage from 123-3 is, like a support response from Microsoft, technically applicable but not much value to this conversation.  It indicates for the record what higher HQ's are allowed to inspect (I suppose there is always somebody who will challenge an inspectors "right to ask"), but it is the SUI guide which outlines the process and questions the IG's are to ask and document, and other than places where online systems have outpaced the paperwork, or the reg has changed, the SUI is pretty comprehensive in regards to squadron operations.

We have the UCC/SLS/CLC/TLC and other PD opportunities, as well as higher HQ staff, to instruct members on squadron operations.

An SUI is not a "How to run a squadron class".

[ZigZag911]

No, I wasn't "confusing the group CC's job with the IG's"...I was the group CC.

When I could be present (as I tried to be in most instances) I would generally speak to the cadet leaders personally; when not, I directed that one of the inspection team do so.

As for all the PD you mention, yes, that's formal instruction...however, there  is no reason not to use an SUI as a chance to steer squadron staff in the right direction.

And, where the need arises, there is no reason an SUI (though more appropriately an SAV) should not be a 'how to run a squadron class'.

You are reducing it to a mechanical process, which I consider squandering an opportunity to help our members.

[Eclipse]

there is no reason an SUI (though more appropriately an SAV) should not be a 'how to run a squadron class'.

You're still combining concepts to try and make your argument.

An SUI and an SAV are not remotely the same thing.  By design an SAV has an "A" in the middle, as in "Assist". 

You can do whatever you want with your units, but as a rule IG's are not there to instruct commanders how to run a unit, they are there to snapshot the unit as it exists and then report to the respective authority.

Where does it end?  Do you simply fix all the administrvia problems that exist as you find them because the unit staff was too incompetent to be aware, then give them an "Excellent"? 

[ZigZag911]

Of course not...you grade them according to their performance, then, if time allows, give them some guidance how to improve....if not, arrange later support from group or wing staff.

I don't think we're going to agree on this, probably time to let it go.

[Johnny Yuma]

Having been on both sides of an SUI I have no problem with older, well experienced cadets performing the SUI inspections. The SUI is more or less a yes/no line of interview with the unit inspected providing the documentation to support. It doesn't take a member with decades of experience or a MAster rating in the specialty to follow the SUI guidelines, determine the unit's answers and go over the supporting documentation. Besides, no unit's grade in any area should ever be made solely off of one person's subjective opinion and every rating has to/should be approved by the senior officer in charge of the SUI and/or the IG.

In short, a trained monkey could do the job. Anyone who has issues with a cadet doing the interview will probably have issues with anyone doing it that isn't a) higher in grade, b) more years, and c) finds anything wrong with their unit.

This kinda strikes a nerve, as I know of one unit in my Region who has their panties in a bunch because they bombed an SUI where cadets were part of the inspecting team. It doesn't appear to matter that the unit couldn't provide the inspectors (cadet AND senior) answers based on the SUI guidelines and couldn't/refused to provide documentation even after the SUI. Apparently all of that is irrelevent because a cadet asked a question.

[heliodoc]

Yeah what Johnmy Yuma says....

Doesn't take years or decades to read a checklist to see if a Sqdn is up to snuff.

Sure, I agree the SUI "team" is there to conduct and didi out of the area.

But those so called team determinations should not take over 15 to 30 days for a Sqdn to get its results and start working on the areas needed.  There should be no...."Well it takes us CAP types 90-120 days to finish due to our full time jobs...""  Conduct it and do it in 30 day or less period....it should take no longer than this anywhere in the US is CAPers on a SUI "team " are "really serious" abiut the job at hand...

If that old addage of CAP experience is out there....then EVERYONE on that team should BE REQUIRED to assist the Squadrons who are faltering whether the Sqdn CC requests it or not.

If A SUI team is there just to evaluate and not mentor after the fact,  then they do NO service to CAP and its successes, in the future!!

[Spike]

^ When inspected a year ago, I was told I did not have regulations accessable enough.  I twice pointed out the paper regulations with all the updates added in the Squadron library.  The 70 year old Colonel still made note that I did not have the regulations.

So we can play it on age both ways.  Too young or too old to inspect.  Honestly though unless you have something to hide, or know you are not doing the right thing, it does not matter who inspects. 

Running a unit is so simple.  Just follow the guides.  Make sure your Officers are doing the same.  Be honest and forward with everyone you come into contact.

I would love for a Cadet to inspect my Squadron.  It would be a chance to show him or her how awesome my unit is compared to whatever unit they are coming from.

[heliodoc]

^^^

Which proves my point more and more..

How much CAP education, how many years of college, what age does it matter?

It's really time to owe up to it and say...anybody with the desire and the ability to conduct and mentor after an SUI should be able to do it.

'course there will those who say... this SUI inspection and we don't need to hold your hand or show you what needs to be done, because after all it is an inspection and YOU ought to have known this stuff..

But Spike's summary pretty much summarizes what it's all about....There is NO perfect CAP operation even in a SUI!!

[RiverAux]

SUIs are often a bit more than just yes/no checklists.  Sure, a lot of the items are like that, but on others some judgment is called for. 

[Spike]

SUIs are often a bit more than just yes/no checklists.  Sure, a lot of the items are like that, but on others some judgment is called for.

Judging whether or not to check "yes" or "no"   

[Eclipse]

^ When inspected a year ago, I was told I did not have regulations accessable enough.  I twice pointed out the paper regulations with all the updates added in the Squadron library.  The 70 year old Colonel still made note that I did not have the regulations.

This is the point where you respectfully ask for a break and get on the phone with higher HQ.  IG's can't deny the laws of physics just because they don't agree with them.

[RiverAux]

SUIs are often a bit more than just yes/no checklists.  Sure, a lot of the items are like that, but on others some judgment is called for.

Judging whether or not to check "yes" or "no"   

Oftentime that is exactly right. 

But going back to what you quoted, in the cadet program section of the SUI there are 14 topics and most of them are subjective questions ("How does the squadron....") that require substantial judgment to evaluate within the SUI criteria.