Delinquent Interim Change Letters

[RiverAux]

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...

[Eclipse]

Got it, and I agree.

[JoeTomasone]

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>

[FW]

^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. 

[arajca]

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. 

Yeah, but would National be standing when we got done? You know how easily we drift from subject to subject...

:angel:

[EMT-83]

... and every regulation would be updated to include uniforms.

[JoeTomasone]

^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.

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.

[FW]

^Hey, I'm just a simple guy with simple opinions 
And, BTW, I think you should be earning that Master rating by now.

[bosshawk]

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.

[Gunner C]

Need a barracks lawyer?  I'm your man! Lt Col Gunner Pierce, Esquire.   

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.

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]

[RiverAux]

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. 

[Short Field]

^Hey, I'm just a simple guy with simple opinions 
And, BTW, I think you should be earning that Master rating by now.

You have to have been enlisted to get a Master Rating - the best a non-mustang officer can hope for is a Senior Rating.

[JoeTomasone]

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.

[ßτε]

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.

[JoeTomasone]

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?

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. 

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?

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. 

[ßτε]

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.

[JoeTomasone]

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".   

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?

[Eclipse]

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*)).

[JoeTomasone]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.