We've discussed NHQ's seeming inability to turn Interim Change Letters into revised regulations many times, but I suppose I hadn't realized how bad it was until I visited the ICL page in the Form/Publication section of the web site.
We've got 6 ICLs from 2007 and 12 from 2008 that haven't yet been turned into regulations. Just a reminder, CAPR 5-4 requires that ICLs be turned into regulations within 3-6 months depending on the type of change being made.
Now, of these 18 delinquent ICLs, it can be safely said that perhaps only 1 is critical (removing rear seats from 15pax vans) so it isn't terribly urgent that they be turned into regulations.
How about a moratorium on new regulations except for critical safety issues until we reduce the ICL backlog a bit? Evidently there is a finite capability at NHQ to handle regulations (which I personally don't understand given the ease of electronically changing the regs), so I suppose we need to work around it.
Great suggestion, River!!
Now let us see the leadership move in to action on that moratorium
I KNOW you know the answer!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: RiverAux on June 24, 2009, 03:16:19 AM
....Evidently there is a finite capability at NHQ to handle regulations (which I personally don't understand given the ease of electronically changing the regs), so I suppose we need to work around it.
There is even a more finite capability for the average volunteer to keep up with all the changes so they have a fighting chance at conscious compliance. We probably have passed that point for most.
Time to slow down the neat idea train so we all have a chance at getting on board.
It's not as easy as changing the PDF. The new pub has to be approved, put up for comments, and then any changes from there have to be re-approved. SHOULD that be being done, yes. But let's not fool ourselves that they can just change the paragraph they want to and re-issue it.
There is a National Board Meeting Coming up.
If everyone on this board sent a message outlining our dissatisfaction with this situation we could probably at least touch the ears of every NB member
Quote from: BrandonKea on June 24, 2009, 03:58:40 AM
But let's not fool ourselves that they can just change the paragraph they want to and re-issue it.
It should be perfectly within reason it would require a complete review of our existing reg's to ensure inclusion of all decisions whether in ICL, NB minutes, or whatever.
And then simply require staying on top of the updates
Quote from: BrandonKea on June 24, 2009, 03:58:40 AM
It's not as easy as changing the PDF. The new pub has to be approved, put up for comments, and then any changes from there have to be re-approved. SHOULD that be being done, yes. But let's not fool ourselves that they can just change the paragraph they want to and re-issue it.
Call me obtuse, but why would all of these steps be necessary to incorporate an ICL? The ICL becomes regulation the moment it's published with no review, comments, or approvals. If the ICL is the only change to the regulation, it logically follows that the updated document should be able to bypass those steps as well.
It's probably because of the way the NB wants them incorporated. "Tell us the changes you want to make to the reg. We vote to allow you create a draft publication of the reg with the changes. Then we'll vote on the entire reg with the changes."
Quote from: NC Hokie on June 24, 2009, 12:15:20 PM
Quote from: BrandonKea on June 24, 2009, 03:58:40 AM
It's not as easy as changing the PDF. The new pub has to be approved, put up for comments, and then any changes from there have to be re-approved. SHOULD that be being done, yes. But let's not fool ourselves that they can just change the paragraph they want to and re-issue it.
Call me obtuse, but why would all of these steps be necessary to incorporate an ICL? The ICL becomes regulation the moment it's published with no review, comments, or approvals. If the ICL is the only change to the regulation, it logically follows that the updated document should be able to bypass those steps as well.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on June 24, 2009, 12:30:36 PM
It's probably because of the way the NB wants them incorporated. "Tell us the changes you want to make to the reg. We vote to allow you create a draft publication of the reg with the changes. Then we'll vote on the entire reg with the changes."
You're probably right. All the approval and votes should have taken place before the issue of the ICL. Updating the reg to include the ICL's SHOULD be a simple matter, but because of bureaucratic nonsense, it probably has to go thorugh the approvals all over again.
An ICL is intended to be a temporary fix pending a change to a regulation. As pointed out an ICL has a shelf life of 90 to 180 days.
So if the change is not incorporated into ther reg or appropriate publication within that period it expires. Unfortuneately the command structure doesn't read it's own regulations. For that matter, they have a great history of enacting changes and than forgetting they ever happened.
Excerpt from CAPR 5-4c
4. Interim Change Letters (ICL). Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies. ICLs may be issued by any level of command unless specifically limited or prohibited by the regulation or manual governing that subject matter. Issuance of policies by ICL is a temporary measure.
a. ICLs outlining immediate policies to be followed for a limited time will be issued with a stated expiration date. Such expiration dates shall not be more than 180 days from the date the letter was issued.
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
So if the ICL is past the respective 90 to 180 day window, violators of the ICL can not be held accountable for not following the ICL?
+1 ... I'd have to agree.
I would NOT be willing to reverse any changes my unit or myself have made because of the ICLs that have now reached their "Best by..." dates.
Can you imagine someone attacking this ICL expiration situation with Literal Malice? "Take those flag patches off your shoulder, they are no longer authorized!" I'm tempted to keep a copy of CAPR 5-4c in my cargo pocket now :D
But I'd be less incuraged to try to meet or enforce their requirements if they haven't already been met. You can't hold someone to an order that by our own regulations is no longer "technically" current and valid.
Actually, National HQ would get a big hit on an IG inspection for not either incorporating the change in the reg or for not withdrawing the ICL.
Exactly why I mentioned an Admin officer Cecil. I know my Wing has been hard for similar issues of our own and would like to see NHQ at least be held to the same standard -- of course they really should be setting the standard.
Now, another partial solution would be to lchange the regulation to lengthen the allowable period to turn ICLs into regulations and I actually wouldn't be adverse to that so long as it was kept to something reasonable (say 6 months).
Quote from: RiverAux on June 24, 2009, 07:51:12 PM
Exactly why I mentioned an Admin officer Cecil. I know my Wing has been hard for similar issues of our own and would like to see NHQ at least be held to the same standard -- of course they really should be setting the standard.
Now, another partial solution would be to lchange the regulation to lengthen the allowable period to turn ICLs into regulations and I actually wouldn't be adverse to that so long as it was kept to something reasonable (say 6 months).
Or...
Issue a new ICL every 90-180 days.
>:D
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 25, 2009, 04:53:43 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on June 24, 2009, 07:51:12 PM
Exactly why I mentioned an Admin officer Cecil. I know my Wing has been hard for similar issues of our own and would like to see NHQ at least be held to the same standard -- of course they really should be setting the standard.
Now, another partial solution would be to lchange the regulation to lengthen the allowable period to turn ICLs into regulations and I actually wouldn't be adverse to that so long as it was kept to something reasonable (say 6 months).
Or...
Issue a new ICL every 90-180 days.
>:D
How about an ICL to 5-4 that says ICL's never expire..... >:D
Quote from: davidsinn on June 25, 2009, 05:25:51 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 25, 2009, 04:53:43 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on June 24, 2009, 07:51:12 PM
Exactly why I mentioned an Admin officer Cecil. I know my Wing has been hard for similar issues of our own and would like to see NHQ at least be held to the same standard -- of course they really should be setting the standard.
Now, another partial solution would be to lchange the regulation to lengthen the allowable period to turn ICLs into regulations and I actually wouldn't be adverse to that so long as it was kept to something reasonable (say 6 months).
Than the term "Interim Change Letter" would not apply
Or...
Issue a new ICL every 90-180 days.
>:D
How about an ICL to 5-4 that says ICL's never expire..... >:D
I think this regular use of ICLs is due to use of the internet. I don't recall there being this many ICLs back when the regs were on hard copy only. We would get a memo, letter or word from higher headquarters about immediate change and then about a month later we would get our package from NHQ with updated regs showing the change. This was done with the same or less national staffing as today.
Now that everything is electronic and searchable, people may feel that it is not neccessary to update the regs as quickly because everyone has access to the ICLs as well as not understanding how to properly use the system.
With all the members in CAP and the electronic access to the ICLs, regs, and NB minutes, we should be able to update manuals within the same timeframe we did before the internet. As far as NHQ staffing, National can always sent out a request for members to volunteer to help with the updates.
I would think this should be an easy think to correct so that we get some of this confusion cleared up and help National "set the example" in following policies.
ICL's as shown in an earlier post are for " situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property. or other contingincy's that require immediate action". Not one of the ICL's listed on the National web page meets that criteria.
OPR
15 Jun 09 Increased Safety Requirements for Cadet Activities CC
30 Mar 09 New Aircraft Ground Handling Video Training Requirement: Due Date 30 Sep 09 DO
5 Jan 09 Assessments for Damage to CAP Aircraft DO
10 Dec 08 Changes to CAPR 39-3, Award of CAP Medals Ribbons and Certificates DP
28 Oct 08 Communications Special Permission Policy NTC
4 Sep 08
Changes to CAPR 39-2, CAP Membership DP
30 Jul 08
CAP Senior Member Professional Development Program, Professional Development Resident Courses PD
23 Jul 08
Modification and Overnight Use of FEMA-sourced Travel Trailers LGT
15 Jul 08
Clarification of CAPM 39-1, Cadet Grooming Standards DP
10 Jun 08
Reconfiguration of CAP 15-Passenger Vans MX
5 Jun 08
ARCHER Program and Policy Update DO
4 Jun 08
CAPR 50-17, CAP Senior Member Professional Development Program and CAPR 280-2, Civil Air Patrol Aerospace Education Mission - Officer Credit for Cadet Service
PD
10 Apr 08
National Incident Management System (NIMS) Training DO
1 Apr 08
Changes to CAPM 39-1 DP
25 Jan 08
Changes to CAPM 39-1 DP
20 Dec 07
Change to CAPR 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership
DP
20 Dec 07
Change to CAPR 39-3, Award of CAP Medals, Ribbons and Certificates DP
18 Dec 07
Change to Civil Air Patrol (CAP) Calendar Month Oil Change Requirements MX
18 Dec 07
Policy Updates Regarding Conflicts of Interest and Insurance Coverage for Maintenance of CAP Corporate Aircraft MX
18 Dec 07
Maintenance of CAP Corporate Aircraft by Pilot Operators and Uninsured Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) Mechanics MX
18 Dec 07
Liability Insurance Requirements for CAP Glider Maintenance MX
18 Dec 07
STCs and Posting STC Performance Data in Locally Developed Checklists MX
16
Let's hold the leaders accountable for their actions or lack thereof in the issuance of ICL's
The 15 pax van change could be seen as an immediate action situation. Same with the ground handling video and this month's safety deal. But, I agree with you about the rest.
Quote from: Cecil DP on June 24, 2009, 04:45:44 PM
Actually, National HQ would get a big hit on an IG inspection for not either incorporating the change in the reg or for not withdrawing the ICL.
Doesn't an ICL that is stale dated become automatically moot? The fact that one expires without entering regulations shows that it did not meet the standards for relevance, and can now be safely ignored. The flag patch is a good example, considerng the AF's pronouncements on army style flags, its unlikely that it would pass big Blues' scrutiny if they tried to give it the "force of law" by making it a real regulation. I suppose the counter-argument is that the
implied will of the commander constitutes a de facto order, but the
express will of the commander is the regulation that causes the ICL to become void. Crikey!
Major Lord
Back in the days of paper regulations, changes to a reg usually was no more than a one page change to be inserted in the particular reg. Charges were made by the NEC by conference call, or the change came from CAP-USAF. Now it appears, conference calls are no longer used to get approval for a reg change. (or does the change require action by the National Board, I haven't looked by bylaws lately.)
Actually, the fact that they become moot is a fallacy some members labor under - the same one that allows some members to believe Board and NEC actions have to run through a printer or email before they are "legal".
The practical reality is that all of these are directives from higher HQ in our direct chain of command - so we should comply as appropriate, and leave the legalistic arguments about directives expiring for the CAP Supreme Court (oh, yeah, I forgot, we don't have one of those).
If you feel so put upon by this situation, file a formal IG complaint and enjoy the fun that ensues. Assuming it got to anyone's real attention, a directive based on an expired ICL would simply see that ICL reissued immediately and the complaint tossed with the member told to be on his way.
This is akin to people who believe we aren't bound to pay taxes - it amounts to nothing but angst for people with too much time on their hands.
Its also interesting that generally people only challenge the regs they don't like, leaving the ones they agree with quietly alone.
Now, with the above said, do I understand why NHQ can't just update the regs and move on? No. But truth be told, the most basic components of the uniform haven't changed much in a decade, and even the more interesting ones not much in several years. Those of us who choose to be informed would still know the minutia of nameplates, and those who can't be bothered to read 39-1 would still be wearing their berets with service dress and bloused pants.
If you want to relieve the rank and file from staying current on what some refer to as the "mess", fine, but the commander's do not have this luxury, its always their responsibility to be current on the regs and ICLs, no matter where they are published.
Too much hassle? Get a staffer to do it or step aside.
I've said it before, people know what they want to know and ignore the rest. A lot of those who claim its too hard to keep up with uniform regs would be able to tell you who batted clean-up for the '39 Red Sox, the number of turns on a factory set idle screw from a 69 Skylark QuadraJet, or how long the wire needs to be for an HF radio from memory.
This isn't as much an issue of knowing and following the regs for our members as much as why did a system that worked well in the time before the internet is now so difficult to do.
Commanders should know all the regs, ICLs, etc., but the system was more "user-friendly" in the past but now we need a knowledge base to help direct the general membership where specific rules are kept (regs, ICL, manuals, etc).
The ICL is a tool and it has not been used properly and has over-complicated the system. Does it work, sorta, but I can use a drill as hammer too but eventually I am going to break the drill.
We are not talking about creating a new process to try and fix this, we are talking about using the existing process as it should be used which should fix the problem.
BTW, using the logic that commanders should know the regs, National should already know this. ;)
Eclipse,
I thought I would take a look in regulations to see if your position that ICLs do not become Moot is a fallacy. Here is what I found for the record:
Interim Change Letters (ICL). Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies. ICLs may be issued by any level of command unless specifically limited or prohibited by the regulation or manual governing that subject matter. Issuance of policies by ICL is a temporary measure.
a. ICLs outlining immediate policies to be followed for a limited time will be issued with a stated expiration date. Such expiration dates shall not be more than 180 days from the date the letter was issued.
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.
5. Changes may only be published by the same unit that published the basic publication. A change will only be published using the page-insert method. Write-in changes are NOT AUTHORIZED.
I don't see anything in this that specifies that ICLs are intended to keep the emergency policies alive beyond their authorized time limit, in fact, I don't see how you can draw an opposite conclusion.
In the event that there is a conflict between regulations and an expired ICL, I don't see how you could justify violating the regulation.
On the other hand, there is no regulation that I am aware of that requires, for instance, the installation of all the seats in 15 PAX vans, and while it would be prudent not to do so ( for fear of some bedwetter complaining about the possibiltiy of too many passengers being carried) If the mission requires all the seats, you should carry out the mission according to actual, written regulations, and strive not to abuse the prohibition against carrying too many passengers. ( In California, its illegal anyway unless you have a class B license)
There is no need to file an IG complaint against the NB to force their hand, compelling them to change an ICL to an actual regulation. The Board is taking action by allowing ICL's to expire, a perfectly legitimate command function. If the Board intends the policy to become permanent, then by not taking affirmative steps to rectify the situation ( by issuing an update or crafting a regulation) we must infer that their intent was to void the policy. (For those of you still waging war upon the Japanese and Germans, please take note)
Major Lord
I've said it before, people know what they want to know and ignore the rest. A lot of those who claim its too hard to keep up with uniform regs would be able to tell you who batted clean-up for the '39 Red Sox, .
Jimmy FoXX
Quote from: Major Lord on June 25, 2009, 07:49:24 PM
...
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.
...
I think the problem is with the ICL's policies intended to become permanent. Temporary policies with an expiration date are pretty clear.
For policies intended to be permanent, the changes are supposed to be incorporated into a new reg within 90 days. But what you have shown here really doesn't address what happens if this doesn't occur. These policies by their nature are intended to be permanent and thus don't have an expiration date.
Quote from: davedove on June 30, 2009, 02:04:07 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on June 25, 2009, 07:49:24 PM
...
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.
...
I think the problem is with the ICL's policies intended to become permanent. Temporary policies with an expiration date are pretty clear.
For policies intended to be permanent, the changes are supposed to be incorporated into a new reg within 90 days. But what you have shown here really doesn't address what happens if this doesn't occur. These policies by their nature are intended to be permanent and thus don't have an expiration date.
The lawyers can tear into this all day, but in re-reading the section listed, considering what you said here, it occurs to me that we have two (2) possible interpretations:
A. Since ICLs are a 'temporary measure' and permanent policy changes must be made into a regulation within 90 days, we can INFER that an ICL, even one intended to effect a permanent policy change, becomes MOOT after those 90 days, whether the regulation was re-written or not.
B. Since the regulation does not specifically state that the ICL becomes MOOT, it remains in effect, and someone should get dinged for not updating the written regulations. Since this position requires no INFERRAL, as the A option, I will choose this reading as the more direct outcome of the language.
It is entirely possible that the drafters intended to write a passage with the effect of Option A, but ended up with Option B by failing to include a simple sentence about this situation. Typical in rules and regulations.
Personally, I look at the 90 days issue like anything else with a deadline: Just because it has passed doesn't mean that all bets are off. For example, some States require, by statute law, that certain permits be either granted or denied within 90 days of application. With budgets tight, those permits are taking 120-150 days to process. The Courts take a dim view of the argument that "because the .gov failed in its duty to perform within 90 days, I should be able to do what the permit would allow, even though I haven't received it."
In this case, I will choose to follow the delinquent ICLs until some further guidance is given from NHQ Legal to say that they really do become Moot. Heck, a simple note on the Knowledgebase that 'Permanent ICLs (do / do not) remain in effect permanently unless retracted/overturned" would clear the whole thing up.
Fun.
openmind
Is it possible everyone's reading a little too into this?
Quote from: BrandonKea on July 02, 2009, 03:43:48 AM
Is it possible everyone's reading a little too into this?
If a Region/Wing/Group/Squadron issued an ICL and did not incorperate it into the effected reg within the 90 day time limit they would take a pretty big hit on a SUI.
So why should National be any different? They're governed by the same regs, supposedly...
QuoteSo why should National be any different? They're governed by the same regs, supposedly...
Do as I say... NOT as I do....
Nuff said???
One thing people seem to be missing. Who authorizes regulation changes? The National CC can't and the National Board only meets twice a year. Or is it the NEC that can authorize a reg change, which does meet four time a year?
Regulations may be changed by the BoG, National/CC (emergancies only), NEC or NB. The NB or NEC may be called to session at any time when 14 day notice is given. The BoG may meet at anytime with "proper notice".
General Courter was just in our ICSS class here at NESA and ICL's were brought up. She explained that because of staff reductions it has been more difficult to get these done but that she has begun pressuring the correct people to work on them.
She said she carries around a list of all the ICL's so that she can stay on top of the subject.
FYI
Quote from: swamprat86 on June 25, 2009, 05:48:54 PM
With all the members in CAP and the electronic access to the ICLs, regs, and NB minutes, we should be able to update manuals within the same timeframe we did before the internet. As far as NHQ staffing, National can always sent out a request for members to volunteer to help with the updates.
I did mention a possible fix for the staffing issue.
Having worked on a upcoming regulation, changing a regulation is a little more then typing something up at midnight while consuming a gallon of coffee and blasting it out over the internet.
Replacing 67-1 with an updated regulation also revises or replaces either totally or partially CAPR 67-4; CAPR 77-1; CAPR 87-1; and CAPR 100-2.
The revision also incorporates a significant change in two asset databases that CAP has. The data bases have to be tested to make sure the database will enable the requirements of the regulation.
Because the revision affects CAP assets; the revisions have to be reviewed and approved by the CAP financial staff and CAP-USAF staff. Legal has to approve changes that comply with US laws complying with the DOD grants by which we recieve funding for various assets.
There are some policy changes regarding property that are subject to review and input by CAP Command, IG staff, financial staff, the BOG, NEC, The National Board and CAP-USAF. Changes from any of the above still require coordination with the other bodies.
Day to day oversight of CAP assets is provided by the CAP-USAF Logisitcs Officer with support from 8 CAP-USAF Liason Region Logistics Officers.As a part of that oversight,they also review the proposed changes
I don't think anyone would argue that some of the regulations are extremely complex and require more work than just changing a few words in a document. However, that is the exception rather than the rule.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 04, 2009, 03:21:45 PM
I don't think anyone would argue that some of the regulations are extremely complex and require more work than just changing a few words in a document. However, that is the exception rather than the rule.
Agreed. I think things would also be far less complex if each reg stood alone on a single subject, and not interlinked or overlapping such as we have with the 39-1 and 39-3 issue. (Not trying to steer this into a discussion on uniforms, that's just the example that comes to mind.)
During MG Courtiers visit to the ICSS classroom it was pointed out to her that when national performs a CI on a wing, the wing being inspected is held accountable for not having current MOU's or supplements, yet national is not being held accountable for converting ICL's into regulations and this gives the appearance of a double standard.
She thought that was an interesting point and took notes on it.
Obviously, the solution is to remove those pesky items from the Wing SUI lists.
Quote from: RiverAux on June 24, 2009, 03:16:19 AM
We've got 6 ICLs from 2007 and 12 from 2008 that haven't yet been turned into regulations. Just a reminder, CAPR 5-4 requires that ICLs be turned into regulations within 3-6 months depending on the type of change being made.
Now, of these 18 delinquent ICLs, it can be safely said that perhaps only 1 is critical (removing rear seats from 15pax vans) so it isn't terribly urgent that they be turned into regulations.
Just as an update and in case someone is thinking of topics to discuss at the upcoming NB meeting, in the last 6 months we haven't turned ANY of the 2007 ICLs into regulations but did manage to clear 5 of the 12 ICLs issued in 2008.
As it stands now:
Outstanding 2007 ICLs: 8
Outstanding 2008 ICLs: 7
Outstanding 2009 ICLs: 4
So, in one sense you could say that CAP made some improvements in 2009 in reducing the number of ICLs on the books though of course there probably are some things voted on by our various leadership boards in 2009 that haven't yet been turned into ICLs, so this isn't a real measure of regulation change over the year.
They are, at least, adding the verbiage at the end of ICL's now that indicate "this is in effect until the reg is updated", etc.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 27, 2010, 11:24:47 PM
They are, at least, adding the verbiage at the end of ICL's now that indicate "this is in effect until the reg is updated", etc.
In other words the CAPR 5-4 limitation of 180 days maximum is in effect unless we don't update the document in which case it isn't.
I just don't have the bal... guts to fall back on the original regulation once an ICL is past 180 days. Technically expired or not, we need to allow for SOME assumption of the intent of the ICL. Even "black and white" isn't ALWAYS black and white.
Big corporations do not operate on "letters". Sure they may publish orders or addendum in memo format, but they are quickly turned into policy in the corporate rule books.
When there are three letters that are; ordering, counter-ordering, and rescinding the counter order, something needs to change.
Time for NHQ to get a "federally funded" work-study student to start knocking these new regulations out. Come on!
Ever heard of the "Golden Rule"? He who has the gold rules and National holds the gold. The folks at National are too busy to worry about putting out new regs, when the NB and NEC continue to make changes at about the same pace that you and I change underwear.
Quote from: bosshawk on January 28, 2010, 07:08:10 PM
.....at about the same pace that you and I change underwear.
Monthly?? :P
I find it hard to believe that 99% of the ICLs cannot be reflected in a revised regulation within one hour - and I'll be generous and allow for 6 more hours to have the updated PDF put on the web site.
We're talking about editing a document - this is not rocket science. Well, maybe the Model Rocketry one is... >:D
The only thing that would require more time are things that might require pictures, such as some items in 39-1. But, for example, the NB votes (for example) to make the Wing Patch optional on BDUs and to remove it from all other uniforms. How long can it possibly take to do the actual work of writing that verbiage into the 39-1 PDF?? There's a change of what, 10 words? Lets ignore the fact that an ICL is not supposed to be used for such things...
Perhaps the NB should vote to change the reg concerning the legal lifetime of an ICL... Then we can see how long that takes to revise. >:D
Quote from: badger bob on July 04, 2009, 03:14:55 PM
Having worked on a upcoming regulation, changing a regulation is a little more then typing something up at midnight while consuming a gallon of coffee and blasting it out over the internet.
Replacing 67-1 with an updated regulation also revises or replaces either totally or partially CAPR 67-4; CAPR 77-1; CAPR 87-1; and CAPR 100-2.
The revision also incorporates a significant change in two asset databases that CAP has. The data bases have to be tested to make sure the database will enable the requirements of the regulation.
Because the revision affects CAP assets; the revisions have to be reviewed and approved by the CAP financial staff and CAP-USAF staff. Legal has to approve changes that comply with US laws complying with the DOD grants by which we recieve funding for various assets.
There are some policy changes regarding property that are subject to review and input by CAP Command, IG staff, financial staff, the BOG, NEC, The National Board and CAP-USAF. Changes from any of the above still require coordination with the other bodies.
Day to day oversight of CAP assets is provided by the CAP-USAF Logisitcs Officer with support from 8 CAP-USAF Liason Region Logistics Officers.As a part of that oversight,they also review the proposed changes
Still, we have ICL's for 2007 still not turned into regs. I really doubt anyone is actively working on the problem. Besides so what if they think its hard? They signed up for the job and we sort of need the correct info. Just do it.
Also it looks like some of these things shoulden't ever have been an ICL in the first place. Whats up with that?
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 29, 2010, 07:09:47 AM
I find it hard to believe that 99% of the ICLs cannot be reflected in a revised regulation within one hour - and I'll be generous and allow for 6 more hours to have the updated PDF put on the web site.
Absolutely correct. The only thing that might hold things up a little bit is if the staff has to come up with the exact language for some of the more complicated things approved by the boards. But even then that can't take too long.
Wholesale revisions such as what they've done with 60-1 and 60-3 lately are a little different and would require a ton of time.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 29, 2010, 02:14:19 PM
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 29, 2010, 07:09:47 AM
I find it hard to believe that 99% of the ICLs cannot be reflected in a revised regulation within one hour - and I'll be generous and allow for 6 more hours to have the updated PDF put on the web site.
Absolutely correct. The only thing that might hold things up a little bit is if the staff has to come up with the exact language for some of the more complicated things approved by the boards. But even then that can't take too long.
Wholesale revisions such as what they've done with 60-1 and 60-3 lately are a little different and would require a ton of time.
Quite frankly, that should be the FIRST step, and the NB should be voting on the proposed CHANGES, which, when approved, are updated in the affected Reg and published.
Your comment would suggest that they are voting on IDEAS, which then need to be codified. That's not a good idea, as it leave the NB's intent to the opinion of the author of the revised regulation. Imagine if Congress proposed a law as an idea, then passed it by vote, then had a clerk write up the actual law... Plenty of room for interpretation issues.
The NB should decide that they want to change something -- remove the Wing patch, say -- then have the research done (does this affect other regs, what are the potential downsides such as member cost, etc), have a proposed rewrite done for each affected reg, then have it all read to the NB for a formal vote. If it's approved, WHAM - publish that puppy. This procedure takes time -- which is why the ICL procedure exists for matters that are so important (perhaps for safety reasons) that it cannot wait that long. But again, it's being used for non-emergency purposes (like removing the Wing patch), and never codified into the Reg.
"Lead by Example" comes to mind here.
Wholesale revision of 60-1?? Haven't done a real sit down with 60-3 yet, but that MIGHT have taken some time
The only wholesale revision was increasing boundaries from 50 miles to 100 miles and a few other gems.
AND separating mission profiles as a stand alone document, by itself, in the Stan Eval side of the website
What did that take???? Six months of thought? Maybe eighteen minutes of keystroking and hyperlinkin
Come on now, is that reallly something to be proud of ??
The whole thing thing is there ought to be drop dead date ON ALL CAP ICL's
Again corporate emulation of wanting to be like the military.......only CAP is rarely on time with regs.
Again, I know there are folks who are going to defend the actions of those "volunteers" at Maxwell. There are more than enough paid staff there and enough work study students, as mentioned before, to get this done.
Anything more than 90 days old OUGHT tobe incorporate into regulation...Day 91 dropped. Just like folks dropping the ball.
CAPers love to talk about IT and the ease of computer use as a Sqdn CC in other threads. How hard is this stuff at NHQ-CAP??
Really how hard is it? Everyone loves to talk inefficiencies in Government. CAP is about equal in those inefficiencies, and for an organization of approx 56,000, I'd think I'd be rather embarrased (sp) that things as "simple" as an ICL can not be agreed upon by NHQ-CAP, NB,and NEC in a REASONABLE amount of time.
Quote from: heliodoc on January 29, 2010, 02:35:26 PMThe whole thing thing is there ought to be drop dead date ON ALL CAP ICL's
Again corporate emulation of wanting to be like the military.......only CAP is rarely on time with regs.
To truly emulate the military, the expiration date of an ICL would simply be removed.
http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/Uniform/default.asp
Note the last line of some of these: "Expiration date can not be determined."
Thanks, Eclipse
With that Army logic....and its numbers exceeding CAP and its ability to assist in Theater and now Haiti Still makes the Army look like a mover while CAP is STILL standing still.......
Whats wrong with CAP's ability to do the same?
I'm still standing by what I have said......CAP still REALLY could improve on alll the basics...again this stuff isn't remotely hard at 56,000 pax compared to the reallll movers and shakers of the military and volunteer world!!
You are all correct that there is really no reason why these changes can't be made withing 15-20 minutes of the NB approving them.
Having said all that....who enforces the regulation? It is the NB telling the NB what to do. If they decicde defacto to ignore the ICL experation date...that is within the scope of their powers.
Why are we bellyaching?
Granted it can make our jobs a little bit harder to make sure we are following the regulations....but if it ever came to inspection or IG time.....we can legitmaly say "but that's not in the regulations" and press on.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 29, 2010, 06:46:37 PMWhy are we bellyaching?
Granted it can make our jobs a little bit harder to make sure we are following the regulations....but if it ever came to inspection or IG time.....we can legitmaly say "but that's not in the regulations" and press on.[/quote]
Sort of.
You could use that to make an excuse as to why you're not doing "x", but you'd still have to adjust behavior once notified.
I think all of us want to follow the regulations we're just having trouble figuring out what that is. The 0-2 and O-9 apparently only provides part of the story. Having copies of all of the National Board minutes now seems to be a requirement. Given the maybe or maybe not nature of the minutes keeping track of what's correct could take a full time senior members attention.
It is correct that an inspection finding could be deflected by saying it isn't in the regs. A side not on inspections, I have had inspection teams arrive with a new regulation published the day before expecting compliance, an unrealistic "gotcha" tactic.
Recently I have seen explicit guidance that if a reg has been updated since the last CI inspection manual was published, you are expected to be following the regulation. Haven't seen it done on something that new though.
^ Does it really matter?
If there's a finding which is trumped by an ICL or updated reg, you put that in your response. Rinse, repeat.
You've got it backwards, we're talking about a finding based on an ICL or revised regulation that is newer than the CI guide that everyone works off of. You can be ok by the CI guide and still get a finding...
Got it, and I agree.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 29, 2010, 06:46:37 PM
You are all correct that there is really no reason why these changes can't be made withing 15-20 minutes of the NB approving them.
Having said all that....who enforces the regulation? It is the NB telling the NB what to do. If they decicde defacto to ignore the ICL experation date...that is within the scope of their powers.
Why are we bellyaching?
Granted it can make our jobs a little bit harder to make sure we are following the regulations....but if it ever came to inspection or IG time.....we can legitmaly say "but that's not in the regulations" and press on.
Because the NB expects us all to follow the changes in the ICL that the regs make improper. Take, for example, the Wing patch. It is a required item on the Blues and BDUs because the requirement to remove it/make it optional came from an ICL that was both improper on its face (issued contrary to regs that require ICLs to be of an urgent nature) and has now expired by lack of inclusion in 39-1. Just imagine all the grief you'll get if you put your Wing patches back on and have to defend why.
Here's a short list of the things we've taken for granted that are NOT currently legit since they were issued by improper ICL, ICL expired (over 180 days) or never incorporated into regs (within the required 90 days):
1. Everything in 39-1. Hoo-boy. The "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" tape, the CSU, the blue Boonie, the long sleeved Golf shirt, the reverse American Flag, the Gortex parka, grade insignia on the BBDU cap, the black leather jacket, and the dark blue flight suit were all approved improperly in ICLs and whose provisions were never included in 39-1.
Additionally, wing patches are still REQUIRED on blues, BDUs, flight suits, and BBDU/Blue Flight Suits.
Enlisted cadets may NOT wear grade insignia on both collars of the Service Coat or blues shirt. Break out those CAP cutouts....
2. Rear Seats in 15 Pax vans. Put 'em back in! I am unable to find that requirement in CAPR 77-1 despite it being revised after the ICL came out.
3. The Cadet Activity Safety requirements (ORM Courses and complete ORM Worksheets before activities, Safey Officer and daily safety briefings required; properly issued by ICL) had no expiration date and were not incorporated into CAPR 52-16.
Now, if you conclude (legitimately) that none of the above is actually in effect and follow what is legitimately published, you'll definitely be walking around with a "wise___" target on your back. I can see a lot of commanders saying, "I don't CARE, you will follow the ICLs anyway".... <shrug>
^CAPT; since the NB made these changes to the regs; it's up to NHQ to incorporate them into the respective regs as per CAPR 5-4 (which was updated :) ) ICL or not, the matter is really moot. The NB changed the regulation and, it is changed; whether published or not. Yes, I agree, it does make confusion. And, yes, there really isn't any excuse for the changes to be made.
Why don't we all go down to Maxwell and have a "reg rev" party.... I think the 2500 members of CT can get this done in no time. >:D
Quote from: FW on January 30, 2010, 02:37:38 PM
Why don't we all go down to Maxwell and have a "reg rev" party.... I think the 2500 members of CT can get this done in no time. >:D
Yeah, but would National be standing when we got done? You know how easily we drift from subject to subject...
:angel:
... and every regulation would be updated to include uniforms.
Quote from: FW on January 30, 2010, 02:37:38 PM
^CAPT; since the NB made these changes to the regs; it's up to NHQ to incorporate them into the respective regs as per CAPR 5-4 (which was updated :) ) ICL or not, the matter is really moot. The NB changed the regulation and, it is changed; whether published or not. Yes, I agree, it does make confusion. And, yes, there really isn't any excuse for the changes to be made.
Negative, sir, it's not that simple.
The members of CAP are required to follow REGULATIONS that are
based on POLICIES that are decided by the NB/(NEC)/BoG.
Quote from: CAP Constitution, Article XX
1. To further the orderly administration of the activities, business and affairs of the Corporation, the
National Commander shall establish and maintain regulations which shall be applicable to all members of
Civil Air Patrol. These regulations will be based on policies established by the Board of Governors,
National Board, CAP-USAF, or law.
The procedure for turning a POLICY into a REGULATION is spelled out in CAPR 5-4 as you noted. Simplified, the procedure is:
1. Policies are adopted by the NB/BoG
2. NHQ OPR prepares draft regulations and posts same for a 30 day member comment period
3. NHQ OPR evaluates comments and revises draft regulations accordingly, then sends to CAP/EX
4. CAP/EX reviews, and if the draft is approved, forwards to CAP/CC
5. CAP/CC reviews, and if approved, the regulation is published.
The only exception to this appears to be the CAP/CC's power to issue emergency regulations (which, of course, can be done via ICL), but that is outside the scope of this discussion.
All of the items I discussed above are not valid because they are not incorporated per CAPR 5-4 AND the CAP Constitution as amended REGULATIONS approved from draft form by CAP/EX and CAP/CC and published by National. The BoG does not have the authority to violate the CAP Constitution, although they may by vote amend it - this obviously has not been done.
Contrary to your assertion, the NB hasn't "changed the regulation"; they have issued polices that have not yet been incorporated into the affected regulations. While I agree that this is something of a formality, the fact remains that it HAS NOT BEEN DONE. Per the CAP Constitution and CAPR 5-4, until that has been accomplished, the regulations have NOT been changed and therefore are by definition not "applicable to all members of Civil Air Patrol".
I'm filing the paperwork for my Senior rating in Barracks Lawyering.
^Hey, I'm just a simple guy with simple opinions ;)
And, BTW, I think you should be earning that Master rating by now. 8)
Perhaps National should consider establishing a new specialty: Barracks Lawyer. Of course, a lot of our CT folks have no idea what that entails, because they are too young and haven't served in the military, where Barracks Lawyers are a special breed.
Need a barracks lawyer? I'm your man! Lt Col Gunner Pierce, Esquire. 8)
QuoteQuote from: CAP Constitution, Article XX
1. To further the orderly administration of the activities, business and affairs of the Corporation, the
National Commander shall establish and maintain regulations which shall be applicable to all members of
Civil Air Patrol. These regulations will be based on policies established by the Board of Governors,
National Board, CAP-USAF, or law.
That could be the answer: NB/NEC needs to get back into the
policy business and out of the regulation business. According to the CAP constitution, they're micromanaging. At the next NB, they need to pass a policy saying that they only deal in policies. [/moebius]
I don't really see a conflict. The boards basically make the decision and then NHQ transforms what they voted on into a regulation.
Now, if you're trying to say that the NB should vote on a policy that says "CAP flight activities should be conducted as safely as possible" and then NHQ has total flexibility on how to write that policy into the regs, I don't think it would work.
Quote from: FW on January 30, 2010, 03:45:38 PM
^Hey, I'm just a simple guy with simple opinions ;)
And, BTW, I think you should be earning that Master rating by now. 8)
You have to have been enlisted to get a Master Rating - the best a non-mustang officer can hope for is a Senior Rating.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 31, 2010, 03:29:18 AM
I don't really see a conflict. The boards basically make the decision and then NHQ transforms what they voted on into a regulation.
Now, if you're trying to say that the NB should vote on a policy that says "CAP flight activities should be conducted as safely as possible" and then NHQ has total flexibility on how to write that policy into the regs, I don't think it would work.
No, it's probably more like the NB votes to prohibit Cadets from riding ATVs - a specific policy - and then NHQ comes up with the proposed actual change to the regs: "Cadet members under the age of 18 shall not operate an ATV. Cadet members over the age of 18 may operate an ATV if they hold a valid state driver's license, but they may not carry cadet passengers."
Then the changes to go CAP/EX and CAP/CC for approval - who presumably understand the intent of the NB since they are members. :)
The problem is, they have been shortcutting procedure by issuing ICLs for things that the regs do not permit issuing ICLs for (like uniform changes). So those are invalid to begin with. Even if they had a whiff of legitimacy, they would have lost it since ICLs must also be codified into regs to remain valid.
So, for example, the CAP/CC becomes aware that a Cadet is nearly killed when hit by an ATV operated by another Cadet. CAP/CC immediately issues an ICL that prohibits Cadets from operating ATVs. This is immediately binding on all CAP members. To remain in force, it must be then voted upon by the NB/NEC and properly codified into the regs. And, since it has, it remains permanently binding.
Another example: The NB votes to remove the Wing patch from USAF style uniforms and make it optional on BDUs. However, instead of codifying this into 39-1, CAP/CC issues an ICL. Since the regs prohibit using ICLs for routine, non-emergency changes to regulations, it is not proper, and thus invalid. However, even if we were to ignore this and pretend that it had legitimac, the ICL expired 180 days later. As the changes were never codified into published regulations, they are no longer in force.
Quote from: CAPR 5-4
4. Interim Change Letters (ICL). Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies. ICLs may be issued by any level of command unless specifically limited or prohibited by the regulation or manual governing that subject matter. Issuance of policies by ICL is a temporary measure.
a. ICLs outlining immediate policies to be followed for a limited time will be issued with a stated expiration date. Such expiration dates shall not be more than 180 days from the date the letter was issued.
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.
To me this says that there are two different types of ICL, those that expire and those that get replaced by an appropraite publication. The latter do not expire and can only be superceded. There is no language that indicates that they become invalid in the case they are not superceded within
90 days.
There are three options as I see it.
1. We can live with the ICLs as intended. If they are still posted on the National Website, they are still valid.
2. We can ignore them, put our Wing patches back on, remove reverse American flag from BDU, not have additional safety briefings at cadet activities, take off our achievement ribbons, senior members take off their community service ribbons and CAC ribbons, senior members remove grade insignia from BDU cap, put the original Command Patch on flight suits, remove all CAP insignia from black A-2 style jacket, stop wearing the dark blue flight suit and go back to the ultramarine flight suit, ICs will remove their IC badges, etc.
3. Disciplinary action should be initiated for not implementing into appropriate publications. Since paid NHQ staff (non-member) are not subject to CAP regulations, the National Commander would be the subject of this action. The BoG should investigate.
I vote for choice 1. Maybe I should start a poll.
Quote from: bte on January 31, 2010, 03:31:30 PM
To me this says that there are two different types of ICL, those that expire and those that get replaced by an appropraite publication. The latter do not expire and can only be superceded. There is no language that indicates that they become invalid in the case they are not superceded within 90 days.
Huh?
Quote from: CAPR 5-4
4. Interim Change Letters (ICL). Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies. ICLs may be issued by any level of command unless specifically limited or prohibited by the regulation or manual governing that subject matter.
Issuance of policies by ICL is a temporary measure.
a. ICLs outlining immediate policies to be followed for a limited time will be issued with a stated expiration date. Such expiration dates shall not be more than 180 days from the date the letter was issued.
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.
ICLs are inherently temporary, expiring in (a maximum of) 180 days if the policy is temporary, or within 90 days if permanent and not incorporated into the appropriate reg.
Quote from: bte on January 31, 2010, 03:31:30 PM
There are three options as I see it.
1. We can live with the ICLs as intended. If they are still posted on the National Website, they are still valid.
For the uniform ICLs you list below, they were never valid in the first place as ICLs are required by regulation to be "Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action". How do you presume to connect uniform policies with an emergency situation? Were Wing patches killing people?
Quote from: bte on January 31, 2010, 03:31:30 PM
2. We can ignore them, put our Wing patches back on, remove reverse American flag from BDU, not have additional safety briefings at cadet activities, take off our achievement ribbons, senior members take off their community service ribbons and CAC ribbons, senior members remove grade insignia from BDU cap, put the original Command Patch on flight suits, remove all CAP insignia from black A-2 style jacket, stop wearing the dark blue flight suit and go back to the ultramarine flight suit, ICs will remove their IC badges, etc.
3. Disciplinary action should be initiated for not implementing into appropriate publications. Since paid NHQ staff (non-member) are not subject to CAP regulations, the National Commander would be the subject of this action. The BoG should investigate.
Quite frankly, both *should* occur, but I cynically presume that neither will. Anyone who "goes it alone" opens themselves up to ridicule or worse. Your interpretation of CAPR 5-4 above certainly adds credence to that supposition. When I read this thread, I *do* admit to daydreaming about the conversation my WG/CC and I would have if I did put the Wing patch back on, etc.
No where does it state that ICLs "outlining immediate policies that are intended to become permanent" expire at any time. It does state that they "shall be incorporated into an appropriate publication within 90 days of the date the letter was issued", but it does not specify that they become invalid if that does not happen.
Even though "issuance of policies by ICL is a temporary measure", the policies themselves are not necessarily temporary.
It is clear that the intent of the ICL's regarding a permanent policy stay in force until superseded. If they really wanted them to expire if they are not incorporated within 90 days, they should have specifically stated that they expire.
It is obvious that the National Commander expects the policies to be enforced until superseded regardless of the 90 day limit or the fact that they may not be regarding "Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action". If you truly believe this is in violation of CAPR 5-4, your only real option is to file an IG complaint at the National level. Until any investigation is concluded, they should be regarded as policies that must be followed.
Quote from: bte on January 31, 2010, 04:57:28 PM
No where does it state that ICLs "outlining immediate policies that are intended to become permanent" expire at any time. It does state that they "shall be incorporated into an appropriate publication within 90 days of the date the letter was issued", but it does not specify that they become invalid if that does not happen.
Even though "issuance of policies by ICL is a temporary measure", the policies themselves are not necessarily temporary.
It is clear that the intent of the ICL's regarding a permanent policy stay in force until superseded. If they really wanted them to expire if they are not incorporated within 90 days, they should have specifically stated that they expire.
OK, so you are postulating that the CAP/CC can alter regulations on a permanent basis merely by issuing an ICL without incorporation into regulations? That clearly contradicts the CAP Constitution and CAPR 5-4.
If you specify an expiration date on an ICL, by definition (IAW CAPR 5-4), it was a temporary policy.
If you do NOT include an expiration date, then by definition (IAW CAPR 5-4) it is intended to be a permanent policy which shall be incorporated into the appropriate publication within 90 days.
The word "shall" denotes "a mandatory requirement [directive]." (CAPR 5-4). There is no out-clause here -- if you issue an ICL, it either must have an expiration date or it must be incorporated into the appropriate publication. Since ICLs are (per CAPR 5-4) temporary, how can you possibly construe that they are valid 2+ years later? How are you defining "temporary" versus "permanent"? Obviously, the definitions that the NB had in mind were "90 days" through "180 days".
Quote from: bte on January 31, 2010, 04:57:28 PM
It is obvious that the National Commander expects the policies to be enforced until superseded regardless of the 90 day limit or the fact that they may not be regarding "Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action". If you truly believe this is in violation of CAPR 5-4, your only real option is to file an IG complaint at the National level. Until any investigation is concluded, they should be regarded as policies that must be followed.
I disagree. I am sure that the National Commander expects the regulations to be enforced, but she (or he, depending on the timeframe of the ICL) lacks the authority to promulgate regulations in this manner. CAPR 5-4 clearly states the procedure, and the procedure was not followed.
Further, pretty much every ICL discussed here failed to meet this standard to even be issued AS an ICL: "Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies."
By your logic, we no longer need a NB/NEC since the CAP/CC can simply issue ICLs at will that are permanently binding though years later have not been incorporated into regulations, with no oversight. Do you
really concur with this?
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 31, 2010, 05:38:16 PM
The word "shall" denotes "a mandatory requirement [directive]." (CAPR 5-4). There is no out-clause here -- if you issue an ICL, it either must have an expiration date or it must be incorporated into the appropriate publication. Since ICLs are (per CAPR 5-4) temporary, how can you possibly construe that they are valid 2+ years later? How are you defining "temporary" versus "permanent"? Obviously, the definitions that the NB had in mind were "90 days" through "180 days".
This is an administrative issue with whomever is charged with updating the regulations - file a complaint, or ding them on the NHQ equivalent of a CI - however it does not make the ICL go ((*poof*)).
Quote from: Eclipse on January 31, 2010, 05:43:53 PM
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 31, 2010, 05:38:16 PM
The word "shall" denotes "a mandatory requirement [directive]." (CAPR 5-4). There is no out-clause here -- if you issue an ICL, it either must have an expiration date or it must be incorporated into the appropriate publication. Since ICLs are (per CAPR 5-4) temporary, how can you possibly construe that they are valid 2+ years later? How are you defining "temporary" versus "permanent"? Obviously, the definitions that the NB had in mind were "90 days" through "180 days".
This is an administrative issue with whomever is charged with updating the regulations - file a complaint, or ding them on the NHQ equivalent of a CI - however it does not make the ICL go ((*poof*)).
No, it's not - per CAPR 5-4, ICLs cannot be issued for uniform changes as they are not emergency in nature. They are invalid on their face.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 31, 2010, 05:46:14 PM
No, it's not - per CAPR 5-4, ICLs cannot be issued for uniform changes as they are not emergency in nature. They are invalid on their face.
In your opinion. "Emergency" is a subjective term.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 31, 2010, 06:05:37 PM
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 31, 2010, 05:46:14 PM
No, it's not - per CAPR 5-4, ICLs cannot be issued for uniform changes as they are not emergency in nature. They are invalid on their face.
In your opinion. "Emergency" is a subjective term.
Not in the regs it's not:
Quote from: CAPR 5-4
Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies.
To repeat what I asked above - were Wing patches killing people? Justify issuing an ICL IAW the above for anything covered by CAPM 39-1.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 31, 2010, 06:10:11 PM
Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies.
I'm glad we can agree on this...
Quote from: Eclipse on January 31, 2010, 06:14:33 PM
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 31, 2010, 06:10:11 PM
Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies.
I'm glad we can agree on this...
LOL - wow, if you can twist that around to justify CAPM 39-1 changes, you should be able to do wonders with CAPM 39-1 itself. Hawk should retain your services to get their orange bling and pink pistol belts justified.
Like it or not, the term "other contingencies" is vague enough to allow for anything to be the subject of an ICL, and frankly, based on the comment about all the hysteria the CSU was causing in the USAF, that's certainly an "emergency".
Quote from: Eclipse on January 31, 2010, 06:37:19 PM
Like it or not, the term "other contingencies" is vague enough to allow for anything to be the subject of an ICL, and frankly, based on the comment about all the hysteria the CSU was causing in the USAF, that's certainly an "emergency".
Well then, if you're willing to argue that the NB's intent of this provision of CAPR 5-4 was to provide a loophole for short-circuiting the OTHER provision of CAPR 5-4 -- if that's a stretch that you can accept, then let's try another mental exercise in futility:
Prove to me through regulations that I must wear a CAP uniform while conducting a cadet activity.
No thank you.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 31, 2010, 08:27:56 PMProve to me through regulations that I must wear a CAP uniform while conducting a cadet activity.
CAPM 39-1 Table 1-1.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 01, 2010, 03:09:06 AM
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 31, 2010, 08:27:56 PMProve to me through regulations that I must wear a CAP uniform while conducting a cadet activity.
CAPM 39-1 Table 1-1.
BAM!!! And that is that.
Same table, line 5:
Quote from: CAPM 39-1senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion.
So if a shirt and tie is more appropriate to the occasion than a golf shirt, I do not have to wear a uniform - even if working with cadets.
Quote from: arajca on February 01, 2010, 03:59:16 AM
Same table, line 5:
Quote from: CAPM 39-1senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion.
So if a shirt and tie is more appropriate to the occasion than a golf shirt, I do not have to wear a uniform - even if working with cadets.
Yep.....if you don't meet wieght and grooming standards. If you are fat and fuzzy you are already outside the "idea" role model so you wearing or not wear the uniform is moot.
Just one of the other many contraditions that this (and many CAP) regulation(s) has.
One line says you got wear a uniform and then another line says you don't have to.
If I were the BoG chair, this regulation would be on my top 5 list for immediate rewright.
By the above logic you have to be out of both weight and grooming for any sort of pass on a uniform.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 01, 2010, 03:09:06 AM
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 31, 2010, 08:27:56 PMProve to me through regulations that I must wear a CAP uniform while conducting a cadet activity.
CAPM 39-1 Table 1-1.
Sorry, that's a MANUAL, not a REGULATION. The CAP Constitution holds that REGULATIONS are binding on CAP Members, and CAPR 5-4 does not say that MANUALS are directive (but that REGULATIONS are).
Quote from: CAP Constitution
ARTICLE XX
REGULATIONS
1. To further the orderly administration of the activities, business and affairs of the Corporation, the
National Commander shall establish and maintain regulations which shall be applicable to all members of
Civil Air Patrol. These regulations will be based on policies established by the Board of Governors,
National Board, CAP-USAF, or law.
Quote from: CAPR 5-4
f. "Manuals" announce procedures and guidance for performing standard tasks and usually contain examples.
(snip)
i. "Pamphlets" are nondirective, informative, "how-to" type publications that may include suggested methods and techniques for implementing CAP policies.
(snip)
l. "Regulations" announce policies, direct actions and prescribe standards.
So, since Manuals are not listed as directive (but merely announce procedures and provide guidance), and since they are not REGULATIONS, then CAPM 39-1 cannot promulgate a POLICY that I must wear a uniform when conducting a cadet activity. Remember, we are using EclipseLogic(tm) here and ignoring what the NB/BoG's likely intention was and focusing on what is actually written.
Now, if there were a REGULATION that said that uniforms will be worn IAW CAPM 39-1, you'd be right.
Quote from: Spike on February 01, 2010, 03:42:37 AM
BAM!!! And that is that.
You thought it was that easy? We're talking about flaws in the logic of CAP publications... We could be here all year. Want another can of worms? Prove to me through regulations that I must extend customs and courtesies to higher ranking CAP and military officers while in CAP uniform.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 01, 2010, 04:34:10 AM
Quote from: arajca on February 01, 2010, 03:59:16 AM
Same table, line 5:
Quote from: CAPM 39-1senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion.
So if a shirt and tie is more appropriate to the occasion than a golf shirt, I do not have to wear a uniform - even if working with cadets.
Yep.....if you don't meet wieght and grooming standards. If you are fat and fuzzy you are already outside the "idea" role model so you wearing or not wear the uniform is moot.
Just one of the other many contraditions that this (and many CAP) regulation(s) has.
One line says you got wear a uniform and then another line says you don't have to.
If I were the BoG chair, this regulation would be on my top 5 list for immediate rewright.
For purposes of this discussion, assume (correctly) that I meet both standards.
And by the way, let me say for the record that I'm not some guy sitting in a basement, wearing tinfoil on his head. I wear my uniform (properly) and salute superior officers and such because I understand that this is expected of me and is the intent of the BoG/NB/etc/etc. However, I also *read* the CAP publications and see inherent flaws in how they were written. If I were in a position to fix the issues without having to send hundreds of memorandums up through the chain of command, I likely would do so.
However, I enjoy a healthy debate, and the whole ICL uniform thing is screaming for a debate (and, quite frankly, to be addressed by NHQ action - what's so hard about doing it the right way and updating 39-1 already?!).
Joe, you are splitting hairs there about the difference between a manual and a regulation.
Are you seriously suggesting that we can just do what we want with uniforms because there are no uniform "regulations"? ???
Quote from: lordmonar on February 01, 2010, 06:32:35 AM
Joe, you are splitting hairs there about the difference between a manual and a regulation.
Absolutely. However, I am doing it with an argument I can defend based on existing language in CAP publications. The fact remains, however, that there IS a difference between a manual and a regulation that apparently gets forgotten occasionally.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 01, 2010, 06:32:35 AM
Are you seriously suggesting that we can just do what we want with uniforms because there are no uniform "regulations"? ???
Not exactly. I'm just making a point that there are enough legal loopholes in them as written to justify it if you wanted to make yourself a pariah.
Do I wear my uniform IAW 39-1? Yes.
Am I suggesting that you violate 39-1? No.
Am I suggesting that doing so could be defended due to bad authorship of CAP publications? Absolutely.
For me, this is merely an intellectual discussion. I'm just saying that (like many things in CAP) there's substantial room for improvement.
For 39-1, you could fix it in the simplest manner possible - make it CAP
R 39-1. Or, simply add one sentence to an applicable existing regulation:
"CAP Members will wear CAP Uniforms as prescribed in CAPM 39-1."
If the BoG/NB wants the CAP/CC to be able to issue unrestricted and non-expiring policies/regulations, all they have to do is simply vote those changes into the regs and it's done. They could fix up the distinctions between manuals, pamphlets, and regulations any time they desired. They could realize that many of the things they consider to be regulations are currently in non-directive manuals and pamphlets and fix it in a heartbeat.
But they haven't.
So we have to go by what they HAVE done, and that's the crux of my point.
However, we don't need the CAP/CC taking advantage of a "loophole" (if you consider the "other circumstances" clause that Eclipse cites to be a legitimate loophole; I don't agree) to issue uniform ICLs despite (what I feel is) the obvious intention of CAPR 5-4 in restricting ICLs to policies of an urgent/emergency nature (life/property, not USAF politics).
If we are going to follow the school of thought that says "The BoG/NB clearly intended us to consider CAPM 39-1 to be directive and binding" then you cannot conclude that they also intended ICLs to be issued for routine matters with any intellectual honesty. We either follow the "spirit of the law" or the "letter of the law".
Let's say that one day you find out that the person who performed your wedding ceremony wasn't authorized under law to perform them at the time because his paperwork was not properly approved. Do you:
A. Consider yourself to still be married legally anyway -- obviously the County wanted him to be performing weddings.
B. Ignore the whole issue - you're together, that's what counts.
C. Immediately make plans to make your marriage legal.
Let it go. There's no point to the "manual vs. regulation" nonsense.
BTDT, use search and review where it goes.
The Winter NB minutes blames this backlog on budget:
QuoteThere is no question that we are behind in the regulation review process, including the inclusion of ICLs into regulations. This is due to budget limits, and since the great majority of the work is done by the NHQ staff, any changes will require additional appropriated or Corporate dollars.
Hogwash. As has been stated, this should not take any significant amount of time in most cases and could be done by volunteer members if necessary.
Several agenda items regarding ICLS, so maybe this thread helped generate a little bit of useful heat....
Quote from: Eclipse on February 01, 2010, 05:08:59 PM
Let it go. There's no point to the "manual vs. regulation" nonsense.
In
your opinion. Personally, I see value in correcting these things.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on February 04, 2010, 05:30:59 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 01, 2010, 05:08:59 PM
Let it go. There's no point to the "manual vs. regulation" nonsense.
In your opinion. Personally, I see value in correcting these things.
Yes, if its corrected, fine. I agree 39-1 should be a reg. But until such time, making assertions that M's aren't as much the rules as R's is silly.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 04, 2010, 05:45:19 AM
Quote from: JoeTomasone on February 04, 2010, 05:30:59 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 01, 2010, 05:08:59 PM
Let it go. There's no point to the "manual vs. regulation" nonsense.
In your opinion. Personally, I see value in correcting these things.
Yes, if its corrected, fine. I agree 39-1 should be a reg. But until such time, making assertions that M's aren't as much the rules as R's is silly.
Given the current wording, I disagree -- again, one of those items that requires cleanup. If I can make a credible argument that a manual is non-directive, then either 5-4 needs to be corrected or any directive manuals need to become regulations.
Logically speaking, if manuals have the same directive power as regulations, then why do you need manuals at all?
Regulations mostly just state policy. Manuals are more detailed, and explain methodology for implementing the policies contained therein.
Quote from: SarDragon on February 04, 2010, 06:39:28 AM
Regulations mostly just state policy. Manuals are more detailed, and explain methodology for implementing the policies contained therein.
Right - and so sayeth CAPR 5-4 -- mostly. It only mentions policies in conjunction with regulations.
Quote from: CAPR 5-4
"Regulations" announce policies, direct actions and prescribe standards.
"Manuals" announce procedures and guidance for performing standard tasks and usually contain examples.
..You can't equate the two from a mandatory compliance perspective unless you are trying to fit the language therein to a predetermined conclusion.
Quote from: RiverAux on June 24, 2009, 03:16:19 AM
We've got 6 ICLs from 2007 and 12 from 2008 that haven't yet been turned into regulations. Just a reminder, CAPR 5-4 requires that ICLs be turned into regulations within 3-6 months depending on the type of change being made.
I had occasion to visit the ICL site today http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/forms_publications__regulations/interim_change_letters.cfm and happily noted that the problem I identified back in 2009 seems to have been solved. At that point we had 18 ICLs that had been around for longer than allowed by CAPR5-4, with 6 more than 2 years old.
Now, we really only have 4 regulations with ICLs to them at this point, 3 of which were only issued in 2011. So, thank you NHQ/BOG/NEC for more or less eliminating this issue.
Unfortunately, we have 4 ICLs to 39-1 that are still current, some of which go back almost 4 years at this point. But, if we assume/hope/fear/dread that a new 39-1 will be issued sometime in the next year we can probably consider the problem solved.