Delinquent Interim Change Letters

[JoeTomasone]

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:

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.

[Eclipse]

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...

[JoeTomasone]

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.   

[Eclipse]

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".

[JoeTomasone]

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.

[Eclipse]

No thank you.

[lordmonar]

Prove to me through regulations that I must wear a CAP uniform while conducting a cadet activity.

CAPM 39-1 Table 1-1.

[Spike]

Prove 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. 

[arajca]

Same table, line 5:

senior 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.

[lordmonar]

Same table, line 5:

senior 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.

[Eclipse]

By the above logic you have to be out of both weight and grooming for any sort of pass on a uniform.

[JoeTomasone]

Prove 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).

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.

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. 

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.

[JoeTomasone]

Same table, line 5:

senior 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?!).

[lordmonar]

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"?

[JoeTomasone]

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.

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 CAPR 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.

[Eclipse]

Let it go.  There's no point to the "manual vs. regulation" nonsense.

BTDT, use search and review where it goes.

[RiverAux]

The Winter NB minutes blames this backlog on budget:

There 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....

[JoeTomasone]

Let it go.  There's no point to the "manual vs. regulation" nonsense.

In your opinion.   Personally, I see value in correcting these things.   

[Eclipse]

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.

[JoeTomasone]

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?