Verbal orders vs regulations

Started by RiverAux, November 24, 2006, 10:56:10 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Eclipse

Quote from: Ned on November 25, 2006, 04:58:28 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 25, 2006, 05:05:10 AMOr worse, as is more a problem, they expect members from other states to adhere to their nonsense when attending events inside their "jurisdiction" (i.e. certain CAWG encampment CC's).


Pardon me? Where did that come from?

You have to take in context,

Quote from: lordmonar on November 25, 2006, 12:12:11 AM
That is why it makes no sense for us to worry about what other units/wings/regions are doing with 39-1.  The CAWG wing king does not answer to us.  He answers to PCR and NHQ and no one else.  If you are in CAWG you have a right and responsibility to voice your concerns up your chain of command but you only have a limited response to what action you can take.

Except...that these Wing CC's believe their authority extends beyond their state - so what about situations where they are sending their members out of state, out of uniform?
(i.e. HMRS)  Or worse, as is more a problem, they expect members from other states to adhere to their nonsense when attending events inside their "jurisdiction" (i.e. certain CAWG encampment CC's).

This is an ongoing problem for those of us running events which attract national participation.[/quote]

Certain CAWG encampments, and some in other states, require everyone wear a Wing patch on their BDU's, despite what their home state may require.  This is outside their authority, IMHO, just as I would not tell a CAWG or PAWG member to remove a counter-regulatory insignia if they showed up for an ILWG event.

I would consider that member to be under their home jurisdiction in this regard.

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on November 26, 2006, 02:49:20 AM
If you and I are thinking of the same document, the one I read was at best poorly written and hardly met anything approaching any sort of acceptable standard of professional writing. If you can produce something that's not scurrilous and doesn't come off as bearing the taint of onanism, I'll be more than happy to read it. I've waited this long to see something worth reading; I expect the wait may probably be considerably longer still.

Ok, first "whinge"?  ???

scur•ri•lous  (skûr-ls, skr-) 1. Given to the use of vulgar, coarse, or abusive language; foul-mouthed.

o•nan•ism   (oh-nuh-niz-uhm) 1. self-love

What I am referring to, of course, are the Katrina AAR's, which to the chagrin of many, we will all live with for the rest of our CAP careers, written by the IC's (from several different states).  They fall into neither of the above, unless you consider self-flagellation ononism. 

Though I obviously wasn't everywhere referred to in the reports, I can attest that I was personally witness to much of what is referred to regarding PAWG, and it is factual and accurate.  That being the case, I hold the entire document to be accurate.

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on November 26, 2006, 02:49:20 AM
I've yet to see anyone from PAWG refer to their home wing as anything near perfect, least of all me. Then again, I haven't seen anyone in PAWG engage in public namecalling of other wings lately either.

Few other wings export the same issues that PAWG does - training in skills outside CAP's missions, extra-regulatory uniform parts and insignia placement, etc.

However, the core of most of the frustration which is vented their way, is that despite the FACTS, PAWG is constantly held up as an example both internally and externally.  This is as much because of the close historical relationship between CAPFLT001 and the PAWG/CC, as because of any mission performance.

I am also sure that this thread’s author doesn’t want it hijacked for another PAWG-bash.  Goodness knows there are plenty of those in other places.  I simply used HMRS as a legit example of one state’s program causing issues for other states by pushing their members, and graduates of their programs, to violate uniform regulations.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Quote from: RiverAux on November 26, 2006, 03:19:24 AM
Quotebut a commander can tell you to bust a CAP rule.
All I'm asking for guys is some sort of citation that backs up this point of view.  So far no one has been able to provide one.

Already told you there is none.  It is just established fact.  If you tie your commander's hands that tight then you may as well just hire a computer that spouts the regs column and verse..because you won't be able to get your mission done.

Quote from: RiverAux on November 26, 2006, 03:19:24 AM
QuoteEither you treat CAP as a military organization or you don't.
I treat it as what it is... a civilian organization in which leaders have the exact same authority to tell someone else what to do as they do in the Boy Scouts or Lions Club.  I would expect the leaders in those organizations to follow their own rules just as we should.

In that case...yes...it does not matter what the written regs say.  It only matters what the chain of command thinks.  Totally.  If you are a BSA leader...you have complete autonomy of what you do.  If you bust a rule...they can fire you.  If your DE tells you to do it some other way....no matter what the written rule is....you do it his way.  He answers to the Council Exec who answers up his chain...but they don't care about regs that much.  The written rule in civilian life is not sacred as it is in the military.  No one is sitting around with all the minute rules BSA has....just as most employees do not even bother to read their company manuals.  They are trained by their bosses and coworkers and they do what they are told. That is why CAP is different than any other private organization.  CAP has a distinct military flavor and as such it has a certain awe for the REGS!  They are holy scripture written on high and only the most wisest of us can read them.  But when the rubber meets the road...and short of an IG inspection the regs are not all that.  The old military maxim is "No Combat Ready unit was ready for an IG Inspection and no Inspection Ready Unit was ready to go to combat." 

Quote from: RiverAux on November 26, 2006, 03:19:24 AM
Just because someone has been getting away with breaking the regulations does not justify breaking them in the first place.  This would be a failure on both the parts of the persons breaking the regs and those not calling them on it.  It doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean that they had the authority to break them in the first place.

Exactly...failure on both parts.  Any rule not enforce is not a rule.  That is Pat's 78th Law.  It makes no sense to [censored] about what the National Commander is doing in regards to 39-1 if the NB or the BoG don't care.  Enforcement comes from above.  Compliance comes from below.  

If you say only black T-shirts and someone else say...but in PAWG we can wear Orange...and no one stomps on them....then you have just established DE FACTO that wings have the authority to violate 39-1 despite the fact that 39-1 says you can't.

If national Knowledge Base says you can wear the First Sergeant Diamond...then you can wear the first sergeant diamond....because NHQ sayso...for get what the reg says.  NHQ trumps everyone below that level!

This is not rocket science.  General Pineda says fly as low as the FAA will let you...I fly as low as the FAA will let me (and is safe to do so of course safety always trumps regulations  :D) and I will continue to do so until someone higher than the National Commander says not to.

Quote from: RiverAux on November 26, 2006, 03:19:24 AM
I'm actually for a more "military" CAP, but the point of view you guys seem to be espousing is that the rules don't really matter and that they can be broken with impunity.  That hardly seems to follow the "military' example.

Just last week I went to my active duty commander a Lt Col...who asked me to do something with our equipment.  I told him the T.O. says we can't and he said "noted....now proceed".  That is because he is the commander and his first responsibility is to the mission, not the regs, not safety and not my wishes or expectations.  He does not answer to me.  I provided him with the book answer and he said proceed.  I am covered both with my personal integrity and by the UCMJ.  Any court that tries to get me for violating a written regulation or order will see that it was superseded by the man in charge.  It will be his ass that gets boot for bad judgment or conduct unbecoming or dereliction of duty not me.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

MIKE

Quote from: Eclipse on November 26, 2006, 03:58:10 AM
Ok, first "whinge"?  ???

Quote from: Urban Dictionary1. whinge Mainly brit variant of to [censored], whine, complain.

Quit yer whinging and go to sleep.
Mike Johnston

RiverAux

Yes, please move this discussion back on track....but you did do some good by bringing up the matter of whether a Wing Commander is still in charge of members who are physically outside his Wing.   While researching this I found this in the position description for Wing Commander:

QuoteEstablish plans, policies, and procedures necessary to the proper conduct of wing affairs that are not in conflict with National Headquarters and region policies and directives.
That pretty clearly says that a Wing Commander (and the same language can be found in the Region Commander, Group Commander, and Squadron Commander job descriptions) cannot issue a policy/order that contradicts NHQ.  

The Squadron Commander job description has even stronger language:
QuoteComply with all policies, regulations, and directives of higher headquarters and require the same compliance by all members of the squadron.
.

None of these quotes from the regulations seem to allow commanders any latitude for breaking regulations.  

Note...there isn't a specific description of the National Commander's duties and authority in 20-1.  

QuoteIf you tie your commander's hands that tight then you may as well just hire a computer that spouts the regs column and verse
Saying that no one is authorized to break a CAP regulation or order someone else to doesn't tie anyone's hands. 


Eclipse

Quote from: lordmonar on November 26, 2006, 04:04:14 AMJust last week I went to my active duty commander a Lt Col...who asked me to do something with our equipment.  I told him the T.O. says we can't and he said "noted....now proceed".  That is because he is the commander and his first responsibility is to the mission, not the regs, not safety and not my wishes or expectations.  He does not answer to me.  I provided him with the book answer and he said proceed.  I am covered both with my personal integrity and by the UCMJ.  Any court that tries to get me for violating a written regulation or order will see that it was superseded by the man in charge.  It will be his ass that gets boot for bad judgment or conduct unbecoming or dereliction of duty not me.

I would say that this is the ultimate final answer,  UCMJ or not, in CAP as well. 

With that said, however, and especially owing to our corporate status, it would likely not fly if the issue was regarding life or CPPT.

"That Others May Zoom"

shorning

For goodness sake, since there are like three conversations going on here can we either break them out or just lock the darn thing? 

RiverAux

#47
So, what is a CAP member to do if given an order that contradicts a regulation? 

Well, CAPR 123-2 offers this:
Quoteb. Responsibilities. CAP members have a responsibility to report Fraud, Waste and Abuse violations (FWA); violations of policies, or directives; abuse (including abuse of authority); cadet protection issues, or misconduct; to an
appropriate commander or IG. In

Miisconduct is defined as:
Quotes. "Misconduct" means improper conduct (acts or omissions) undertaken with the knowledge the conduct violates a standard (an identifiable directive, instruction, policy, regulation, rule, statute, or other standard without regard to knowledge, motive or intent) or willful disregard for that possibility with intent to harm or purpose of personal profit, advantage or gain.

So, if CAP members have a responsibility to report violations of regulations, wouldn't it stand to reason that no one has the authority to violate (or order a violation) of the regulations in the first place?  Note that a regulation violation is defined as misconduct no matter what they motive or intent. 

JohnKachenmeister

River:

A page or so back I provided a hypothetical example for discussion.  I'm interested in how YOU would handle a request to violate a regulation in order to accomplish a mission.

I'm also interested in how others would handle the same situation.

I'll repeat it if you can't find it, but I'm interested in whether you are process-oriented or results-oriented.
Another former CAP officer

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on November 25, 2006, 04:37:09 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on November 25, 2006, 03:28:54 AM
QuoteIf you refuse to obey an order that violates a regulation, your commander will get a letter of reprimand for issuing it, you will get a court-martial for refusing to obey it.  (Something about the direction of flow of excrement on hillsides.)
Again, you're getting the military mixed up with CAP.  The obligation of military members to follow all orders given to them unless they are illegal is an entirely different situation. 

I'm not talking about verbal CAP orders that violate local, state, or federal laws.  No one in their right mind would follow them. 

But show me where CAP members are obligated to follow orders that contradict CAP regulations.  I've never seen anything in CAP regulations (which are all that matters to us) that says we must do so. 

River:

There's nothing that says you HAVE to oney any order, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, fatening or healthy.  We are volunteers.  We can quit. 

I used the military as an example, from which we may derive some measure of guidance.

How's this example:

You are a ground team leader, working with an aircraft on a high-profile SAR mission.  Your current assignment is to search an area around a non-towered airport near where the target plane disappeared from radar.  Suddenly, your aircraft observer says that the search plane has to land immediately, and sets down at the airport.

You take your team over, and discover that the Mission Pilot has become ill, and could no longer fly the aircraft.  An ambulance is taking him away as you get to the airport.  The rest of the crew consists of an unrated scanner and a non-pilot observer.

You call the Mission Base, and explain the problem to the Incident Commander.  After an expletive delected or two, the IC tells you that there is a hot lead regarding a low-flying aircraft over some woods about 20 miles away, that matches the description of the target aircraft.  The IC says that there are no other close aircraft.

Then the IC drops a bomb on you. 

"Captain, you're a pilot, aren't you?  Can you turn command of your team over to your second-in-command and fly the CAP plane back to the base?"

You explain that you are FAA current, but your CAP Form 5 ride is 2 months expired.

The IC then says:  "I need that plane.  I have a qualified crew here ready to go, but no plane.  I have a plane there, but not a full crew.  I want you to bring it here."

What would YOU do?  The order is clearly in violation of 60-1.  You probably won't be covered by insurance in the event of a crash.  But on the other hand, there is a clear mission requirement, and you can fly the mission without violating any laws or FAA regulations.



OK, I bumped it without waiting to be asked.

Seriously, how would you handle this?
Another former CAP officer

SJFedor

I'd say "I'd be glad to fly the aircraft for you. I'll just need you to call the Wing and Region commander, as well as the NOC, and get the blessing from all of them before I'll do it. Otherwise, my apologies, I'd recommend you mobilize your crew into a car and get them driven down here"

Flying a CAP aircraft without a current F5 is an insta-2B, regardless of what the IC wants or needs. Send the GT to start working the area 20 north until they can get the plane to the crew or the crew to the plane.

If all above requirements were met, Wing, Region, and NOC all approve me operating the aircraft, and verbally agree to hold harmless, I might begin to consider flying the aircraft, but, sorry, the crew that came with the plane aren't leaving with it.

Not to mention, if I'm humping it out on a GT mission, I doubt I have any of my flight gear with me, specifically my medical, which I keep inside my logbook, which I keep with the rest of my flight gear.

Steven Fedor, NREMT-P
Master Ambulance Driver
Former Capt, MP, MCPE, MO, MS, GTL, and various other 3-and-4 letter combinations
NESA MAS Instructor, 2008-2010 (#479)

Ned



Quote from: Eclipse on November 25, 2006, 05:05:10 AMOr worse, as is more a problem, they expect members from other states to adhere to their nonsense when attending events inside their "jurisdiction" (i.e. certain CAWG encampment CC's).

You have to take in context,
Certain CAWG encampments, and some in other states, require everyone wear a Wing patch on their BDU's, despite what their home state may require.  This is outside their authority, IMHO, just as I would not tell a CAWG or PAWG member to remove a counter-regulatory insignia if they showed up for an ILWG event.

I would consider that member to be under their home jurisdiction in this regard.

Bob,

At the risk of [further] derailing the thread, I have to point out that this simply isn't true.

No CAWG encampment commander has ever "required" non-CAWG folks to wear a wing patch on their BDU's.

First, let's note that there has only been one CAWG encampment since the wing patches became "optional" in March of this year.  I've spoken the the CAWG encampment CC on this very issue, and she says it was simply not an issue at encampment this year.  Nobody brought it up at any meetings, and she certainly did not make any order to that effect. 

(She's actually sitting next to me as I type this.)

As with any large activity with hundreds of CAP members involved, it always possible that communications problems occurred within the encampment.  But I was there for most of the encampment, and didn't hear any controversy in this regard.

What, specifically, are you talking about?


It is always fair to point out when CAP officers have acted "outside of their authority" if those officers have, in fact, done so.  The reverse is also true.  It is not fair to assert that volunteer leaders have acted outside their authority when they have not done so.


Finally, I should note that even if she had directed non-CAWG folks to wear a wing patch on their BDUs last August,  Maj Gen Pineda's implementing memorandum of 15 MAR merely said that the wearing of wing patches on BDU's was "optional," without saying whose choice it was.  Among the possible choices (member, local unit commander, activity commander, wing commander, region commander, or some other person) there is simply nothing to suggest that an activity commander could not require the patch for uniformity's sake, as part of specifying the UOD.






DNall

I agree, I'd ask for written permission from Wg CC or NOC to go flying, otherwise no go. Provide refs of the last check pilot that fm5'd you or has flown with you enough to know you're not going to drill in. The medical is no big deal since they are going to release you unseen anyway. Faxing a copy the next day is nice if you want people to sleep easier.

RiverAux

#53
JohnK -- you obviously missed my earlier reply.  If there is a choice between breaking a reg and saving a life, I'm going to save the life and fully expect to get kicked out of CAP, and I can live with that.  In the example you gave I would follow DNALLs approach since I've chased far too many "hot leads" to risk my CAP career on one easily.  A better example would be that the CG Aux is prohibited from entering the water even to save someone's life.  If a little kid went in the drink while I was on a patrol and there was no other way to get him, you bet I'd jump in after him and I'd take the consequences.  However, these situations are so rare they aren't actually relevant to the conversation.

Here are some quotes from CAPR 35-3 which apply to this topic: Causes to terminate senior members:
Quote(7) Serious or willful violations of CAP regulations or directives.
and
Quote(9) Failure to obey rules, regulations, and orders of higher authority.

So, sort of a catch 22.  You can be kicked out for violating a regulation and you can get kicked out for not following an order.  Note that #9 doesn't say "valid" order or otherwise indicate that the order must have been in accordance with regulations. 

Either way, a CAP member given an order to do something that contradicts a regulation could very possibly be screwed. 

So, given all the reg quotes I found (you guys were no help at all!) here is what I would do if given a verbal order to break a regulation:
1.  Call the next higher commander to confirm the order.
2.  If it is "confirmed" I would do it so long as it wouldn't be some sort of safety risk.  If there was a safety hazard of some kind involved, I don't care who tells me to do it I'm not going to do it unless it is an extraordinary circumstance such as I gave above.  If it is an order to set up a file system in a way other than prescribed by CAP regs, I would do it after confirmation. 
3.  Then, in all situations where an order to break a reg was given whether or not I carried it out, I would report it to the IG. 

This is the only way I can see to handle this situation so as to keep the risk of getting kicked out afterward as low as possible. 

Oh, and by the way, I still stand by my statement that no CAP officer has any authority to issue an order that contradicts regulations.  The only exception being a written emergency change to regulations by the National Commander. 

For the person who broke a military reg recently, are you under any obligation to report this similar to what CAP members are supposed to do (as directed in the reg I quoted yesterday)?

Hey CA-PA Wing people--- get outta my thread and start your own on Wing CC authority.

SJFedor

Quote from: DNall on November 26, 2006, 06:38:22 PM
I agree, I'd ask for written permission from Wg CC or NOC to go flying, otherwise no go. Provide refs of the last check pilot that fm5'd you or has flown with you enough to know you're not going to drill in. The medical is no big deal since they are going to release you unseen anyway. Faxing a copy the next day is nice if you want people to sleep easier.

Medical is required to be on your person per FAR's, not CAP regs.

FAR 61.3 http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/14cfr61.3.htm

You get caught jumping in or out of an aircraft where you intend to be or were the pilot in command by a FSDO inspector, and you don't have your pilot certificate, medical, and photo identification, your [expletive] is grass, and the FAA shall be smoking it.

I've had time to really ponder this, and I really think that, in this situation, me operating this aircraft is probably not in my best interest, nor in the best interest of CAP. There's some secondary things about this that make me nervous, and being pressured by an IC that needs the aircraft may put me into a position where I'm not flying or operating safely.

And unless we're way out in the middle of nowhere, 100 miles from the ICP, I'd recommend the crew just drives to the aircraft, and let the last crew from the sortie drive their car back to the ICP. By the time they get all the clearances I want from Wing, Region, and the NOC, they probably coulda just driven there anyway.

Steven Fedor, NREMT-P
Master Ambulance Driver
Former Capt, MP, MCPE, MO, MS, GTL, and various other 3-and-4 letter combinations
NESA MAS Instructor, 2008-2010 (#479)

DNall

That's fair enough, but I'd argue fairly hard at an FAA inspector that preservation of life & property superceed the FARs, especially when ordered to the contrary by competant authroity who you knew to be in active contact w/ AFRCC. That would be a consideration by the way. If you're talking about getting a plane to a crew cause you need to track down an ELT signal, I'm going to be quite hesitant. On the other hand if you have a missing 8yo in the mountains north of you with weather a day out & you're losing light, you might convince me. I'm not getting someone potentially hurt or killed to CYA, and that applies equally to CAP regs, the FARs, & the military. In the military you're expected to spend subordinates at times to accomplish a mission, and bound by some tighter rules, so the dynamic is the same, but shifted slightly.

Regs are never going to tell you when it's okay to break regs. They're neer going to set a precence by which you'll follow one at the cost of another. Really, there's almost no situation under which you can ever be ordered to grossly violate regs. What you'll run into is a commander interpreting a reg in a way you disagree with & ordering you to proceed anyway. In that case you do have to proceed & take up the request up teh chain for clarification after the fact, or like I said, drop your membership card & walk. You volunteered into CAP, just like folks volunteer into the military, and you have to follow orders just like they do & there are consequences if you dont. The only difference is you can quit CAP at any time & they can't just walk out on the AF cause they don't like what they've been told to do - imagine fighting a war that way.

JohnKachenmeister

I guess I'm easier than all you guys.

I would have put the IC on speaker, and had him acknowledge the order, and acknolwledge my flight status, so my second-in-command and the remaining flight crew could hear it.  Then I'd fly the plane back.

I assumed in the situation that the only regs violated would be CAP's, so I will assume I have photo ID, pilot license, medical, and I haven't had alcohol within the previous 8 hours.  I already indicated I was FAA current.

As far as flying the remainder of the crew back, I would take them with me, especially the qualified observer.  He's got the radio frequencies, airport information, and stuff I might need.

The Scanner?  I don't know.  IF I had a team of cadets that my departure would leave with only one officer to supervise, I'd leave the scanner with the team as a second officer.  Otherwise, I'd take the scanner home.  He probably doesn't even have a canteen of water, and is not equipped to stay in the field.  Or maybe I'd give him my gear if he had an honest face.

I also would not report it to anyone.  No harm, no foul.  Plus, my immediate commander on the mission is the IC, and I trust his integrity enough to make it a part of his report.

And I'd understand why he would not put me in for a Commander's Comendation for my quick action in response to his request, too!
Another former CAP officer

BlackKnight

#57
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on November 26, 2006, 05:11:35 PM
...What would YOU do?  The order is clearly in violation of 60-1.  You probably won't be covered by insurance in the event of a crash.  But on the other hand, there is a clear mission requirement, and you can fly the mission without violating any laws or FAA regulations.

Seriously, how would you handle this?

This is a no-brainer.

I kick members off my ground team on SAREXs if I discover their CAPF-101s are invalid.  I've stood down entire teams on real SAR missions for that nonsense. No one on my team is allowed to drive a CAP vehicle without having a valid CAP drivers license.  And no one rides in said vehicle on a mission without being in proper uniform.  Orange vests go on whenever we deploy in the woods.  The bottom line is that we don't violate regs except to save a life. And as has been stated earlier, that scenario is so rare that most of us will thankfully never have to make that call. Can you imagine what my reply to Mr. Cowboy IC  would be?   

Seriously, the correct response is to offer the IC alternative solutions that permit accomplishing the objective while remaining in compliance with approved regs.  Sometimes that doesn't work. Almost all of us have experienced managers, commanders, or ICs who, like Custer, make it up as they go and refuse to listen to sound advice.  When that happens you have to stand your ground and listen to them scream at the other end of the phone until they either run out of 4-letter words or regain their composure.  ;D

This is the slippery slope. Once you start ignoring approved regulations you end up with rule of man instead of rule of law.  Society has been down that road before.  We don't ever want to go there.
Phil Boylan, Maj, CAP
DCS, Rome Composite Sqdn - GA043
http://www.romecap.org/

Major Carrales

John,

Interesting senario...hummmmmmm?!

I am not a pilot, but if I were at the IC's command center or on the ground by the aircraft and the IC was ordering a non-form 5 or BFR pilot ro fly that aircraft because of immediate need...

I would protest to the point of CAPF 2b.  I would first offer a strong opposition to the IC stating that this was a violation of REGs.  If I were on the ground I would seriously consider preventing that pilot from getting on the plane.

We are a nation of LAWS.  Regulations like CAPR 60-1, contrary to the common belief, are not their to annoy us.   They are there to establish a pattern of operation.  Many are the result of past failures to which the reg as been changed to mitigate the fact.

This is not STAR TREK, where the USS Enterprise is "the only ship in the quadrant."  If it looks like the objective is near the downed (for pilot illness) aircraft...then launch another.

Yes, its a command descision that has to be made and the responsibilty of the IC is ultimate and, also YES, the life of the person from whom we are looking is sometimes measured in MINUTES...but, there is a reason that the reg forbids it.

Yes, a slippery slope indeed.  I have written very strong words on this matter here.  I guess the real answer will come when that actually happens.

May it never...

Major Carrales

"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

Eclipse

Quote from: Ned on November 26, 2006, 05:58:09 PMIt is always fair to point out when CAP officers have acted "outside of their authority" if those officers have, in fact, done so.  The reverse is also true.  It is not fair to assert that volunteer leaders have acted outside their authority when they have not done so.


Finally, I should note that even if she had directed non-CAWG folks to wear a wing patch on their BDUs last August,  Maj Gen Pineda's implementing memorandum of 15 MAR merely said that the wearing of wing patches on BDU's was "optional," without saying whose choice it was.  Among the possible choices (member, local unit commander, activity commander, wing commander, region commander, or some other person) there is simply nothing to suggest that an activity commander could not require the patch for uniformity's sake, as part of specifying the UOD.

I'll take my lumps if I called out CAWG with regards to the patch issue and visitors.  I'm busted from a SAREx today or I would go looking for the threads we disccused this in to see if it was a different wing - I have no reason to believe you're not better informed than I.

On the "optional" issue, I disagree that an activity Commander could require a participant from another state to counter-mand a directive from their home state's Wing CC, and I would hope that good practive and common sense would dictate that no one require a member to incur cost, or put needle to thread, for a single week, especially a cadet.

"That Others May Zoom"