Out ranking

[Spaceman3750]

Eclipse,

I might ask around at work tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure in loco parentis applies to schools and not a whole lot of other people. And that's fine with me, because it makes me legally liable for Timmy's sprained ankle after he does something stupid.

[NCRblues]

Eclipse,

I might ask around at work tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure in loco parentis applies to schools and not a whole lot of other people. And that's fine with me, because it makes me legally liable for Timmy's sprained ankle after he does something stupid.

Actually it applies to every youth organization (in which CAP qualifies) according to the SCOTUS. In fact, the TLC class for CAP has almost an entire section on that alone....

[Spaceman3750]

Eclipse,

I might ask around at work tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure in loco parentis applies to schools and not a whole lot of other people. And that's fine with me, because it makes me legally liable for Timmy's sprained ankle after he does something stupid.

Actually it applies to every youth organization (in which CAP qualifies) according to the SCOTUS. In fact, the TLC class for CAP has almost an entire section on that alone....

Hm. Interesting.

[NCRblues]

Eclipse,

I might ask around at work tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure in loco parentis applies to schools and not a whole lot of other people. And that's fine with me, because it makes me legally liable for Timmy's sprained ankle after he does something stupid.

Actually it applies to every youth organization (in which CAP qualifies) according to the SCOTUS. In fact, the TLC class for CAP has almost an entire section on that alone....

Hm. Interesting.

And in fact I just found this on the Mo supreme court database of decisions and opinions...

"Community Service Organization
A non-profit, non-partisan community organization which is designated as an IRS Code 501(c)(3) agency, or a human service organization that serves citizens including children, youth, and the elderly are included inside the general RSMO for in loco parentis"

~ Mo supreme court circa 1995

[Dad2-4]

I was going to stay out of this discussion because.......well, just because. But I decided to make a couple of quick comments.
While on AD as a USAF Security Policeman we were frequently reminded that there's a difference between rank and authority. Being at a SAC base full of heavy aircraft meant there were TONS of officers. Of course they all outranked the rank and file SP troops. But they could not even get near their planes without the SP clearing them at the entry control point. They had the rank, we had the authority. And more than one officer (new 2nd Lewy up to LtCol) tried to "pull rank" when they forgot their ID badge in their gym locker and couldn't come in.
On another note concerning "in loco parentis", mention that you have some of the same rights and responsibilities as their parents to a classrom full of jr. high or high schools kids and watch the sparks fly. 

[lordmonar]

Eclipse,

1) You don't read do you.  STAFF authority as defined in the article I quoted....not as "a member of the Staff"...which is either Line or Functional Authority. Depending on the situaiton.

2)  We show customs and coutesites because those individuals have AUTHORITY over us. 

3) CAP gives officers authorities over other officers and members when they promote them.  You can't debate it.  The SM oath is exactly like the AD oath.....Officers Appointed Over Me.....means all officers not just the ones in your chain of command (Line Authority).  BTW the SM oath is the first cite that you were asking for prooving that you are wrong.

4) CAPR 35-3 provides clauses for both insubordination and failing to follow the orders of "higher authoirty"....with out stating that either of these must be in your chain of command. (that would be second cite that you are wrong).

So there you go. 

You think that the only source of authority is via the chain of command......okay....you are wrong...but okay.

[usafcap1]

Well, it appears, from a post on another thread, that the OP is a cadet. That doesn't relieve him from knowing that information, though.

His profile shows an age of 20. He may be a flight officer wanting to pull rank (whatever that means in a CAP context) on a SM. Who knows.

No I'm still a cadet

[Eclipse]

2)  We show customs and coutesites because those individuals have AUTHORITY over us. 

Not in CAP.  Cite anywhere, anyplace that says that.

3) CAP gives officers authorities over other officers and members when they promote them.  You can't debate it.

Cite, please.

Per CAPP 151:
Rules for Saluting. It is a courtesy exchanged between members of the Civil Air Patrol when in military-style uniform as both a greeting and a symbol of mutual respect

It says nothing about authority.

In your examples, every former Wing CC would be free to tell everyone else in the wing, except the current one, what to do, and would be free to roam into other wings and go the same.  Ditto for those wearing one and two stars.

You might also note that FW, who is a full Colonel, agreed with me on my description of CAP grade in this thread.

Seriously, cite the regs that give grade authority.  Cite an example where this works in practice.  Cite anything.

[Eclipse]

Eclipse,

I might ask around at work tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure in loco parentis applies to schools and not a whole lot of other people. And that's fine with me, because it makes me legally liable for Timmy's sprained ankle after he does something stupid.

Actually it applies to every youth organization (in which CAP qualifies) according to the SCOTUS. In fact, the TLC class for CAP has almost an entire section on that alone...

Yep, as mentioned, that concept is a cornerstone of CPT and supervision of cadets or any similar organization, even having 3 friends over to play in your pool, etc.

[bflynn]

On another note concerning "in loco parentis", mention that you have some of the same rights and responsibilities as their parents to a classrom full of jr. high or high schools kids and watch the sparks fly. 

Well, you don't have the same rights and responsibilities as their parents - that could be the reason why sparks fly.  In the context of CAP, we are different than schools because we are not a government institution.  In some ways that expands the power of in loco parentis and in others it limits it.  For example, we are not limited in the same way with regards to prohibiting free speech, but we also draw the authority from the parents, who can deny portions of it.

Quick search, these pages appears to summarize it pretty well. 

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_stud.html
http://www.quaqua.org/inlocoparentis.htm

[Nathan]

It might be interesting to draft a simple CAP "UCMJ" type regulation that would provide some sort of guidance for the exercise of authority.  We could do things like create an actual CAP commission granted by the National Commander / NB / BoG (pick one or more) that requires obedience from inferior grades and move on from there.

What do you suppose such a regulation would look like?

Well, I wouldn't think it would look a whole lot different than what we think intuitively when we consider the concept of rank and hierarchy.

CAP members have various missions to accomplish, and various chains of command. I do believe that in order to facilitate efficiency, then the chain of command must remain paramount. But I see absolutely no reason why one member should not be able to give another member an order so long as the order is not at odds with directives from the member's chain of command.

Contrary to what Eclipse believes, I honestly don't think that embracing this type of philosophy requires us to rewrite anything, because I'm fairly certain that rank already has an implied authority that you find in the regulations themselves.

Promotion, for instance, is not merely a matter of taking tests, but requires approval at higher levels of command, and therefore can be denied. What's the point of denying a promotion if the promotion means nothing? Why are commanders given that particular power? It was always my impression that with increased rank comes an increased responsibility and breadth of power, and if a commander felt that a member was not capable of handling the power that comes with the increased rank, then the promotion would be denied. There really isn't any other reason for a commander to have the power to deny a promotion, so it seems that the regulations were already accounting for the rank/authority association.

The fact is that we have no regulations specifically prohibiting the use of rank as a measure of authority and command power, and we have plenty of regulations and powers (such as what I mentioned above) that clearly imply that sort of effect. Writing it out specifically wouldn't do much more than convince people like Eclipse of something that people like me assumed (rightly or otherwise) was already the "spirit of the regulation."

[Major Carrales]

An interesting debate...I usually (in my mind) considered Eclipse and Loardmonar to be on the same page on this subject.

I maintain that there are some things that are clearly true and those that are not in method, policy or practice.

TRUE

An assigned commander is an Authority in CAP as is an delegated one also but of a differentiated type.  Thus, I am a Squadron Commander and responsible for the direction, mission readiness and overall well being of the Unit I command.  It's not "playing" at anything in that is is responsibility.  In the same manner that a Principal of a school is in charge of their campus, a manager of a store is in charge of their facility and a military commander is in charge of their unit.

Delegated authority is key and also exists.  As the Squadron Commander I can delegate Cadet Programs to a DCC and Squadron Leadership Officer, overall I am still responsible for that element of the program in that I am the Commander.  All boons and boondoggles are attached to me.

UNTRUE

Your given grade issues you an anuthority over others in a CAP setting by default.   This cannot be.  I am a major, should I have a Lt Col in my unit who either 1) just acquired that CAP grade because of prior service, 2) rose to that rank years ago and has been in active only to return 2) transferred in from another Wing...I will show the necessary respects via customs and courtesies...but I am assigned as the unit commander any the ultimate responsibility for the unit is still mine.  Should that person overstep that authority and either undermine it or start issuing orders without such authority this is...in itself...a disrespectful act.

TRUE

In loco parentis has to have a big place in CAP.  There has to be a level of authority over the cadets that hold responsibility.  Those finding fault with in loco parentis may have an assumtion that it means "anything goes."  This is not so.  What it does mean is that a person is in a position of resposibility...that relationship narrowly defined.

Someone has to be in charge at CAP activities.  We have to look about the cadets to prevent hazing, bullying and other behaviors that come out of a lack of supervision.

It does not mean to impose personal, religious or other beliefs on a cadet.  This may be where the problem is.  In loco parentis means "in the place of the parent" not "Another Parent."   Don't let the concept distract from the debate.  I suspect some believe that phrase means that a person take more liberties than it actually implies.

[Nathan]

Nobody is arguing that rank does or should override the authority assigned to position. So in your example, I haven't and would never advocate a random Lt Col overriding your decision about how to run your unit. Your authority is derived from the wing commander as long as your orders concern your own unit.

However, if you two are at a random activity and he asks you to help him with some particular project, then the idea is that his rank gives him the authority to make that an order. Your status as a unit commander is irrevelent outside of the unit, and in a situation where positions either don't exist or do not interfere with the given order, rank is the only other way of determining who is in charge of a situation, and subordinate ranks are obligated to respect that.

[lordmonar]

Joe....what you are saying is true to an extent.

Line authority is as you say in the chain of command starting up at the National CC down to your CC to you CDC or CDS to your direct supervisor to you.

That is Line Authority.  The Safety Officer does not have LINE authority over anyone...except his assistances in the Safety Shop.  Just like the The squadron commander in the next town does not have any LINE authority over you.

Now the Safet Officer has FUNCTIONAL authority over everthing that falls into the SAFETY area but he has not Line or Functional authority over any one or anything outside of SAFETY.

NOW.....and here is my point......all officers and NCOs have STAFF authority by vertue of their grade and rank!
All things being equal a ANY Lt Col can order ANY Major an below to do something.

Of course in most cases LINE and FUNCTIONAL authority over ride STAFF authority.  That is why the 1st Lt Squadron Commander can order around the former wing commander squadron member.

But OUTSIDE OF THE squadron.......the Col out ranks the 1st Lt and has STAFF authority over him.....as demonstrated by the fast the 1st Lt salutes the Col.

Now is this in the regulations?  No...but it is not in the USAF's regulations either.  It most certainly is in the corporate knowledge of the USAF and is backed up by common practice and precidence.

[Eclipse]

NOW.....and here is my point......all officers and NCOs have STAFF authority by vertue of their grade and rank!
All things being equal a ANY Lt Col can order ANY Major an below to do something.

100% incorrect - not by regulation, not by precedent, not by custom in CAP. 
The chaos that this would inject into CAP operations would be incredible.  A large group of people with little CAP experience, or no current knowledge,
being allowed to order others around simply because of their rank and because they "felt like" it?

Now is this in the regulations?  No...but it is not in the USAF's regulations either.  It most certainly is in the corporate knowledge of the USAF and is backed up by common practice and precedence.

Again, incorrect.  It is part of the UCMJ which I quoted above.

Explain a single example where this is workable, and your staff examples are not correct.  A safety officer has delegated authority to administer the wishes of his commander or higher HQ, he cannot, on his own, implement any policy or procedure that his commander does not approve, nor can he
compel others downstream to comply with anything outside his lane or on his whim.  This idea that a staffer is "king of x" at his echelon is the root cause of a lot of "tribal knowledge" conflicts in CAP.

An ESO, for example, is not approving qualifications on his own whim or authority, he is implementing the Wing-CC approved process and procedure for
those approvals.  Either they meet the spec or they don't.  The ESO's job is to recommend and frame those procedures back up the chain to
the Wing CC, but he can't make changes or tell people to do anything downstream that isn't already in the regs or an approved SOP/supplement, etc.
He's theoretically the SME in his respective department, and that's about it.

[spacecommand]

However, if you two are at a random activity and he asks you to help him with some particular project, then the idea is that his rank gives him the authority to make that an order. Your status as a unit commander is irrevelent outside of the unit, and in a situation where positions either don't exist or do not interfere with the given order, rank is the only other way of determining who is in charge of a situation, and subordinate ranks are obligated to respect that.

I find that two members at some random activity asking another member to help another and that other member helps as a courtesy and respect for each other, that is one thing and a far cry from a higher grade member having the authority to order another lower grade senior member to do something based on that person having a higher grade/or rank alone. 

In addition for CAP and CAP activities, grade/rank is not the only other way of determining who is in charge of a situation.  If it came to that, then a lot of things have already failed/gone wrong if you do not know who is in charge of a given situation, ORMs maybe off the charts, and people are not following proper procedures for that event already.

[lordmonar]

NOW.....and here is my point......all officers and NCOs have STAFF authority by vertue of their grade and rank!
All things being equal a ANY Lt Col can order ANY Major an below to do something.

100% incorrect - not by regulation, not by precedent, not by custom in CAP. 
The chaos that this would inject into CAP operations would be incredible.  A large group of people with little CAP experience, or no current knowledge,
being allowed to order others around simply because of their rank and because they "felt like" it?

What chaos.....it is how we run things down here in NVWG....Don't know you ILWG does it...but there is no chaos.

Now is this in the regulations?  No...but it is not in the USAF's regulations either.  It most certainly is in the corporate knowledge of the USAF and is backed up by common practice and precedence.

Again, incorrect.  It is part of the UCMJ which I quoted above.

Explain a single example where this is workable, and your staff examples are not correct.  A safety officer has delegated authority to administer the wishes of his commander or higher HQ, he cannot, on his own, implement any policy or procedure that his commander does not approve, nor can he
compel others downstream to comply with anything outside his lane or on his whim.  This idea that a staffer is "king of x" at his echelon is the root cause of a lot of "tribal knowledge" conflicts in CAP.

An ESO, for example, is not approving qualifications on his own whim or authority, he is implementing the Wing-CC approved process and procedure for those approvals.  Either they meet the spec or they don't.  The ESO's job is to recommend and frame those procedures back up the chain to the Wing CC, but he can't make changes or tell people to do anything downstream that isn't already in the regs or an approved SOP/supplement, etc. He's theoretically the SME in his respective department, and that's about it.

Eclipse......You are exactly right.....all authority devolves from delegation.  It is confered by the commanders on to subordinates.

I agree 100%

LINE AUTHORITY is from the National CC on down to the lowliest C/AB by placing everyone into a supervisor/subordinate chain.
FUNCTIONAL AUTHORITY is from the National Commander through the command chain to the repective staff officer.
STAFF AUTHORITY is from the National Command throught the promotion authority to the indivdiual officers.

You are absolutely right My authority as a MSgt and Your authority as a Major is delegated to you by CAP promotion regulations.

[Eclipse]

Your authority as a MSgt comes from your promotion as an enlisted person in the military, the responsibilities and authority are specifically
delineated by the AFI's and UCMJ. 

You have no authority as a MSgt in CAP, any more than I do as a Major based on grade alone.
Every bit of authority in CAP is positional in nature, and nothing else.

You keep comparing power to authority, and bringing in the military model which is not appropriate to CAP, but you have yet
to cite anything close to a CAP-equivalency of the UCMJ, and your interpretation of "appointed" is no correct in this context.

When CAP promotes a member to a given grade, that person is not automatically appointed above everyone else in that grade.
it simply doesn't work that way, in either practice or the regs.

It's also interesting that in all the years you and I have conversed on these topics, and the positional nature of CAP grade has
been bandied about, usually with respect to doing away with it because it is "meaningless" (not my words), you've never once
taken the stand that grade is anything more than ceremonial.

[lordmonar]

You have no authority as a MSgt in CAP, any more than I do as a Major Lt. Col. based on grade alone.

Sure you do...I know I do.

Every bit of authority in CAP is positional in nature, and nothing else.

I Disagree.

You keep comparing power to authority, and bringing in the military model which is not appropriate to CAP, but you have yet
to cite anything close to a CAP-equivalency of the UCMJ, and your interpretation of "appointed" is no correct in this context.

Power and authority go hand in hand....Power with our authority is simply chaos....your example of the cadet with the Commander's password.  Authority with out power is simply useless. 

CAP does not have an equuivalancy of the UCMJ because it does not need one.  It is simply the nature of our military model.  We teach it all the time.  Those with grade have authoirity over those with out it.  No one ever made a regulation about it becuse no one ever thought that some one would suggest that a Lt Col did not have any authority.

When CAP promotes a member to a given grade, that person is not automatically appointed above everyone else in that grade.  it simply doesn't work that way, in either practice or the regs.

Yes it does.  It gives them STAFF authority.  Go back and read the article I posted it explains the different types of authority very clearly.   Staff authority is ALWAYS there unless it is trumped by LINE or FUNCTIONAL authority.

It's also interesting that in all the years you and I have conversed on these topics, and the positional nature of CAP grade has been bandied about, usually with respect to doing away with it because it is "meaningless" (not my words), you've never once
taken the stand that grade is anything more than ceremonial.

It is "meaningless" because 90% of the time the only authority that we encounter in CAP will be Line or Functional authority.  As it was when I was on AD.

You very seldom ever encountered some random officer ordering you around.  a) They are usually too busy to do so.  b) they understand that crossing the chain of command (LINE AUTHORITY) is not something you really want to do.  But just because you don't encounter it too often does not mean it does not exist.  If you were to vist my squadron and you gave an order to one of the Lt's.......he/she would be expected to follow that order.....enless it ran counter to standing orders from his FUNCTIONAL or LINE superiors.  If there is a conflict he should tell you about it and attempt to find some one in his LINE to resolve the conflict.

This is exactly what happens on AD.

Now before when we talked about grade in CAP.....and it being meaningless....that was more comparing it to the military model.

The Military has quotas on rank.
The Militry is very aware of the concept of making sure that the highest ranking member is also the highest in the LINE of command.
The Military can move its officers to where they are needed.
The Military retires or releases officers that have reached their peak.

So in comparison to that....CAP rank is meaningless.  It is not necessary to possess a particlar grade to get a particlar job.  CAP could do away with military grade very easilly....if it chose to do so.

But in this debate we are discussing the nature of authority as it applies to a military type organisation.  In a military organisation....all Lt Cols our rank all Majors, etc and so forth.  That is called STAFF Authority.

Line Authority is based on your position in the chain of command.....STAFF authority cannot interfer with the LINE Authority.  So a Capt in your LINE has more Authority then a Genearl who is only exerting STAFF authority.  Because the general can't exert Staff Authority to influce the mission....that is for the LINE.

So...General Soandso(who is not in the chain of command) orders LT Newguy to get a hair cut.....Capt Youngman can't countermand that order.  It is legal, and it with in the scope of STAFF authority.  General Soandso orders Lt Newguy to leave his duty post to run an errand....Capt Youngman can countermand that order...because that is part of the mission and that falls into the scope of LINE authority.

It as simple as that.
Now the USAF (and the other services) know that this is Masters Level Leadership and they make sure that they avoid these sorts of stituations.  They try to make sure that the commander is the rnaking member of the unit....so his Line and STAFF authority are congruent.  The teach their officers NOT to go around randomly ordering other people around.  They teach their SNCOs and Officers how to resolve these issues when they come up.

I have not ever suggest that rank is simply ceremonial.  I have suggest that CAP spends too much time where STAFF and LINE authority are not congruent (I have never said it this way before).  I have suggest ways that we can fix that (award grade based on position instead of progression in the PD system).  But I suggest this not because it is meaningless...but because IT DOES have meaning.  However it is very difficult to teach the subtlies of different types of authority.

[Eclipse]

But in this debate we are discussing the nature of authority as it applies to a military type organisation.  In a military organisation....all Lt Cols our rank all Majors, etc and so forth.  That is called STAFF Authority.

No, we're actually not.  You keep comparing military grade-based authority to CAP's structure, when most of us know that is a fruitless endeavor.
CAP is paramilitary, not military.  And for this discussion, there's a chasm of difference. This basic truth about CAP is the fundamental reason why
many current and former members of the military struggle in CAP - our duck walks and quacks, but it's not really a duck.

You don't have "staff authority" unless you are appointed to a staff position, and then that authority if only the narrow lane to which your
staff position was delegated the commanders authority.

You can spin this 12 ways to Sunday, but there's a Venti with your name on it if you can get anyone from NHQ to agree with you.