Cadets viewing files

[FlyTiger77]

How can you justify giving even an observation for doing something the regulations state the unit should do?

Under the pain of answering a question possibly meant to be rhetorical, you rightfully can't.

I would further submit that "may" would indicate an optional allowed course of action, while "should" would denote a preferred COA, although I would have to find CAP's glossary to be certain I am correct.

v/r

[FlyTiger77]

Another example would be that a Safety officer should not be the Commander.  Since its a should, not a will, it can be the CC, but its not a good idea.  Therefore, units with Commanders would get an observation that this is not a good idea, however making a change is also not required.

We now seem to be comparing apples and igloos.

An observation may be warranted for the commander being dual hatted as the safety officer, since the regulation states the two positions SHOULD NOT be filled by the same body. However, an observation is patently ludicrous for maintaining the records of transferred members in an inactive file for 5 years, as the regulation states you SHOULD keep them in exactly that manner.

[ßτε]

Observation--A minor deficiency documented to place emphasis on the need for resolution before it develops into a more serious problem, to provide crossfeed to other units or to act as an indicator of overall unit health.

How can you justify giving even an observation for doing something the regulations state the unit should do?

That's what observations are for -  to provide guidance or comment in area that are optional.  Observations do no require remediation
unless the commander deems them important (oh, forgot, that's me, too).

Another example would be that a Safety officer should not be the Commander.  Since its a should, not a will, it can be the CC, but its not a good idea.  Therefore, units with Commanders would get an observation that this is not a good idea, however making a change is also not required.

Actually your analogy is incorrect.

This would be a correct analogy:

Regs say unit should keep copies of files for five years.
The unit keeps copies of the files for five years, as recommended.
You give an observation that they are keeping copies of files for five years.

Regs say the Safety Officer should not be the unit commander.
The Safety Officer is not the unit commander, as recommended.
You give an observation that the Safety Officer is not the unit commander.

You should not give an observation for a unit doing something exactly as recommended in the regulations.

[ßτε]

This also would be a correct analogy:

Regs say unit should keep copies of files for five years.
The unit does not keep copies of the files for five years.
You give an observation that they are not keeping copies of files for five years.

Regs say the Safety Officer should not be the unit commander.
The Safety Officer is also the unit commander, as recommended.
You give an observation that the Safety Officer is also the unit commander.

With these two, the observations would be justified.

[FlyTiger77]

I would further submit that "may" would indicate an optional allowed course of action, while "should" would denote a preferred COA, although I would have to find CAP's glossary to be certain I am correct.

BLUF: I was close but not quite correct; however, "may" and "should" are not regulatory synonyms, although both ARE non-directive in nature:

From CAPR 5-4, paragraph 1, dated 5 Feb 07 with Change 1 dated 9 Apr 09:

1. Definitions. As used in national publications distributed on or after the date of this regulation, the following words will have the definition indicated:
a. "Shall", "will" or "must", when used in a regulation, manual, OI, supplement, or change there [sic] to indicate a mandatory requirement [directive].
b. "Should" indicates a non-mandatory or preferred method of accomplishment [nondirective].
c. "May" indicates an acceptable or suggested means of accomplishment [nondirective].

[lordmonar]

Eclipse.....if I were an IG doing an SUI and you did not retain the records for transfered members you would get an observation for violating 10-2 and 39-1.

Should as opposed to should not....does not mean it is optional, it means that you need to have clear justification why you are not doing thing as suggested by the regulations.

A Commander should not be the Safety Officer.....but if you have no one qualified you can.

Records of transfered members should be retained for 5 years.....so what is the justfication for not keeping them? NOTE:  Because I don't have to is not an acceptable answer.

[Eclipse]

Eclipse.....if I were an IG doing an SUI and you did not retain the records for transfered members you would get an observation for violating 10-2 and 39-1.

To which my response would be a quote of the regs above which do not indicate a requirement to retain said records, therefore no response or remediation is necessary.

Should as opposed to should not....does not mean it is optional, it means that you need to have clear justification why you are not doing thing as suggested by the regulations.

Yes, it actually does, see the post above yours.  "Should" is a positive recommendation, "should not" is a negative recommendation, and neither is binding absent additional directives from higher HQ.

Records of transfered members should be retained for 5 years.....so what is the justfication for not keeping them? NOTE:  Because I don't have to is not an acceptable answer.

They serve no purpose whatsoever.

They clutter up the file cabinets.

They create additional unnecessary work for already overtaxed unit staff.

And in all this work towards helping me overtake Riveraux, you still have failed to demonstrate where there is any requirement to
retain the records of a transferee, only former members, which are not transferees in this context.  Saying it over and over doesn't make it more applicable or change the context.

Also, because I don't have to...

[RiverAux]

And in all this work towards helping me overtake Riveraux,

Didn't realize you had pulled so close...you'll probably pass me up given the current crops of topics, which aren't really grabbing my attention.   

[Eclipse]

A dubious achievment funded in part by my wife's benevolence and the unemploment insurance system.   

[Krapenhoeffer]

Eclipse.....if I were an IG doing an SUI and you did not retain the records for transfered members you would get an observation for violating 10-2 and 39-1.

To which my response would be a quote of the regs above which do not indicate a requirement to retain said records, therefore no response or remediation is necessary.

Should as opposed to should not....does not mean it is optional, it means that you need to have clear justification why you are not doing thing as suggested by the regulations.

Yes, it actually does, see the post above yours.  "Should" is a positive recommendation, "should not" is a negative recommendation, and neither is binding absent additional directives from higher HQ.

Records of transfered members should be retained for 5 years.....so what is the justfication for not keeping them? NOTE:  Because I don't have to is not an acceptable answer.

They serve no purpose whatsoever.

They clutter up the file cabinets.

They create additional unnecessary work for already overtaxed unit staff.

And in all this work towards helping me overtake Riveraux, you still have failed to demonstrate where there is any requirement to
retain the records of a transferee, only former members, which are not transferees in this context.  Saying it over and over doesn't make it more applicable or change the context.

Also, because I don't have to...

Except that keeping records for 5 years serves a useful purpose: Should any legal action come up involving the unit, you have records to document everything. After 5 years, the statutes of limitations expire, so there is no reason to retain the records after the time limit expires.

However, before the 5 years are up, it is a very good idea to keep the records on file. It's not like one would have to play with them that often, they just stay in the file cabinet and gather dust. Ask your legal officer, he/she will agree with me.

[Eclipse]

Except that keeping records for 5 years serves a useful purpose: Should any legal action come up involving the unit, you have records to document everything. After 5 years, the statutes of limitations expire, so there is no reason to retain the records after the time limit expires.

Are you talking about transfers or former members?

The records of a transferred member would exist to satisfy any legal issues in the current folder wherever they went.  Also, based on the required contents of a member's file, there is little of anything of a legal nature that would be needed in a suit.  Anything regarding status, cppt, ES, pilot quals, etc., would be on file at NHQ or part of eServices.  Anything regarding an adverse action would be on file in other places as well (IG records, etc.).

[lordmonar]

Eclipse....you are simply wrong.

CAPR 10-2 says:

31 Dec Note: cut off when membership expires or transfers and destroy after 5 years

This is not optional.  You MUST retain the record until when membership expires or transfers and destroy after 5 years.

This is the primary regulations for files and superscedes all other regulations and instructions to on this topic.

As for clutting up files drawers....that is really a lame answer.  On Dec 31 you simply bundle up all the inactive files still in your active drawer put a big rubber band around them and stick them in a box marked Destroy on 31 December 2015 and then you are done.  You then find the box marked with Destroy 31 Dec 2010 and shred them.  Takes you about 10 minutes.

The purpose of keeping those records is so that if the transfering or exprining member should ever need to recreate his records within the next five years the are still on hand.

It is that simple.

[FlyTiger77]

To try to bring the discussion from the abstract to the concrete, please consider the following:

In a collegial, professional organization based on mutual trust and respect, the imperative mood is typically unnecessary. When I tell captains or lieutenants, "You should do thus and such," they and I both clearly understand that, absent some contrary valid, concrete reason, they will, in fact, do "thus and such." Now, if a captain had the audacity to tell me later that "thus and such" were not accomplished because of the arguably childish reasoning that I did not state that he/she "shall/will/must" do "thus and such," one can easily imagine that several negative things are likely to happen in rapid succession, the least of which will be the future severe limitation of the offending officer's discretion.

The above even holds true if I phrase my directives in the form of a question, as in "Captain, would you please do thus and such?" Conceivably, I suppose, the captain could say, "No," but that has yet to happen. If it did, you can imagine the course of events would be very similar to those imagined in the previous case.

In both examples above, my intent (the spirit, if you will, of what needs to happen) is clear.

Anyone who relies, as stated above in tiny font, "Also, because I don't have to..." will not be long in a position of trust and responsibility in my organization.

[Eclipse]

^ The statement above accounts for a command imperative in addition to the regulatory requirements - I already accounted for that in several of my comments.  If you, as a commander, feel its a value to sit on records you don't have to keep, by all means do so.

It also assumes some wonderful world where CAP is fully staffed, fully funded, and has some consistent baseline of training for all, when we all know the real CAP, in addition to being a worthwhile use of your time, is a bastion of conflicting regs, unfunded mandates (for both time and money), and with little depth of position.

Any time the word "should" can be used to reduce the overhead on a squadron, we should be doing do, as in the case for discussion.

Constitutional and legal scholars spend their careers arguing over words like this, which is appropriate, but it never ceases to amaze me the lengths that people in a volunteer organization will go to make their lives harder, especially to no purpose for anyone involved.

[FlyTiger77]

Regulations are, by definition, the instructions of command, or as you call it "a command imperative." In my example above, there is NO difference in the verbiage used, merely the means of communication, verbal vs. written.

The NHQ has issued regulations containing, for the purposes of this discussion, three possibilities:

     "Will/Shall/Must"=no discretion (This is what NHQ expects to happen)
     "Should"=limited discretion (This is what NHQ expects to happen absent a valid reason to not)
     "May"=total discretion (This is a way to make something happen, use it if you want)

As I stated previously, "Should" and "May" are not regulatory synonyms. If they were, they would be listed on the same definition line just as "Will/Must/Shall" are.

Pragmatically, I don't see what is so onerous about sticking a file in a cabinet and looking at it once a year for 5 years and then destroying it. The benefit of needing it and having it far outweighs the cost of the 1 inch of storage space and 10 minutes/year for reading the destruction date off of it.

Your opinion is that you should not maintain the records of transferees. NHQ's opinion is that you should. From a unit's perspective, whose opinion is more valid?

Now, all of this is predicated on CAPR 39-2 being the controlling regulation on the matter. Maj Harris seems to have found a superceding regulation rendering the entirety of the matter moot.

[lordmonar]

Okay....paper work reduction.

How many tansfers do you do a year?

I got almost 100 cadets and Senior Members in my squadron and we transfer out maybe 5-6 per year and most of them are AD military types.

I loose 2-3 times that many to people dropping out.  So I am doing up to 24 records into the inactive file per year.  We clean out the files in January....this takes maybe 1 hour to bundle up the new inactive file group and destroy the 5 year old stuff.

Now tell me how you can ignore a regulation "should" (but it is really a will)....because we "should" be reducing paper work.

[Eclipse]

Now tell me how you can ignore a regulation "should" (but it is really a will)....because we "should" be reducing paper work.

Its not "really a will" - be clear there.  How can you "ignore a should"?  By not doing it.  Despite the assertions here, CAP defines
"should" as non-mandatory.  "Non-mandatory" means you don't have to do it, period (absent a directive from higher HQ).  There is no inherent extra weight.  If its important enough to be mandatory, it needs to be a "will/shall".  Anything else is local interpretation.  Period.

How many transfers?  We've been working to normalize our empty shirts (another "should" that I treat as a "will"), so I have some units that have 20 000's transfers this year alone.  Granted this is a one time situation, but in your world we're sitting on those files for 5 years, despite the fact it serves no purpose and is not required (these are not "former members").  Even at your rate of 5 per year that's 25 jackets by the end of the supposed retention period that have to be tracked and kept somewhere, and many units don't have permanent facilities, so they are carting their files in and out of every meeting.

25 jackets is going to fill one of those file carriers in the least, which then has to be dragged to every meeting (unless of course you choose not to truck them around, which is fine, until they are lost in someone's car or basement, then you have a new problem, and one which was preventable because it is unnecessary to keep all that paper).

[lordmonar]

Now tell me how you can ignore a regulation "should" (but it is really a will)....because we "should" be reducing paper work.

Its not "really a will" - be clear there.  How can you "ignore a should"?  By not doing it.  Despite the assertions here, CAP defines
"should" as non-mandatory.  "Non-mandatory" means you don't have to do it, period (absent a directive from higher HQ).  There is no inherent extra weight.  If its important enough to be mandatory, it needs to be a "will/shall".  Anything else is local interpretation.  Period.

Yes but the only place that says "should' is 39-1.  10-2 say you will retain then.  10-2 is the reg that governs files and records and therefore that take precidence over what 39-1 says on matter of records management.

How many transfers?  We've been working to normalize our empty shirts (another "should" that I treat as a "will"), so I have some units that have 20 000's transfers this year alone.  Granted this is a one time situation, but in your world we're sitting on those files for 5 years, despite the fact it serves no purpose and is not required.  Even at your rate of 5 per year that's 25 jackets by the end of the supposed retention period that have to be tracked and kept somewhere, and many units don't have permanent facilities, so they are carting their files in and out of every meeting.

No one says you have cart around your inactive files.  Show me where is says that!  Your inactive files can go into a box and be stored in someones garage for all I care (so long as that location is noted on the file plan per 10-2 )
As for not serving any purpose...it does.  It maintains the chain of records should anyone ever loose theirs in transit to finding a new unit.  I can't really understand how you are so tied up over the work load of maintaining some extra records....but you have to maintain all those expried members.....and if your unit is typical you should be seeing 2-3 times the number of people just dropping out instead of transfering....oh...but that's right....you transfer those people to the 000 squadron send the files to wing and then just forget about them!

25 jackets is going to fill one of those file carriers in the least, which then has to be dragged to every meeting (unless of course you choose not to truck them around, which is fine, until they are lost in someone's car or basement, then you have a new problem, and one which was preventable because it is unnecessary to keep all that paper).

Well there you go....you are just going to find any old way of not doing it.....because you are just don't want do it...

Well I'm out.

[FlyTiger77]

When you wrestle with a pig, you both get filthy. However, after a while, you come to realize that the pig likes it.

I, too, believe I am muddy enough.

[Eclipse]

Neither 10-2 nor 39-2 supports your opinion as a requirement.

10-2 indicates that the cutoff for transfers record retention is 5 years, but it does not require the retention.
(If you keep them, you dump after 5, but you don't have to keep them).

31 Dec
Note: cut off when membership expires or transfers and destroy after 5 years

39-2 specifically delineates "transfers" as different from "failure to renew". 

1-8. Inactive Records. Members who transfer, resign, retire, or fail to renew may request their membership records from the unit. The unit should keep a copy of the former member's personnel record in the inactive file. Members whose membership is not renewed or terminated may request a copy of their membership records from the unit; however, the unit will retain the official records. Records not requested by former members will be removed from the unit's active file and arranged alphabetically in an inactive file. The unit is required to maintain records of former members for 5 years unless otherwise directed by Membership Services (NHQ CAP/LMM). If not requested after the 5th year, records will be destroyed.

Note its says nothing about transfers, and transfers are not "former members".  If they were, and retention was required, when a member transferred and then quit two years laters, every unit they ever touched would have to be notified and the clock restarted on the retention of those records.