Verbal orders vs regulations

[fyrfitrmedic]

 Kee-ripes.

I swear I'm gonna write a version of Godwin's Law that substitutes 'HMRS' for Naziism.

Let it go already - there's been enough whine about HMRS and bloody orange t-shirts to fill up the bloody Napa Valley.

[RiverAux]

I am treating CAP like a military organization.  Is that not what you want?  You keep saying the USAF thinks we are a joke.  Why do you think that?

I think you're mixing me up with someone else.  I've never said USAF thinks we're a joke.  I think 99% of the USAF has no clue who we are or what we do.

If I fail to follow corporate policy I will be fired.  If I fail to do what my boss tells me to do I will get fired.  There is almost no difference.

The difference is that the National Commander is not a military person.  He answers to various corporate boards and he only has limited authority to contradict policies (regulations) approved by them. 

Quote from: Major Carrales on Yesterday at 09:59:11 PM
"I would say that CAP-USAF and the USAF utlimately keep that power in check."


Unlikely since they have no such authority & are legally restricted for even making suggestions in such areas. CAP-USAF only provides limited oversight of operational missions & use of appropriated funds. That's it. NHQ can & has many times flat out violated CAP regs to do anything they please & the AF can not ony do nothing about it, CAP-USAF literally cannot mention it. There have been AF IG investigations & all kinds of stuff spelling out the case law on all this. The AF has ZERO oversight authority over the administration of CAP. That's what teh BoG is for since 2000, and they've never done anything, despite being formed in the face of major problems.

At least as far as doing anything as the AF Aux, CAP-USAF does have quite a bit of authority.  In regards to the topic of this thread, the National Commander couldn't issue an emergency change to CAPR 60-3 in regards to AFAM without CAP-USAF approval according to the regulation I previously quoted, and which I assume is based on other agreements with the AF.

[Eclipse]

Kee-ripes.

I swear I'm gonna write a version of Godwin's Law that substitutes 'HMRS' for Naziism.

Let it go already - there's been enough whine about HMRS and bloody orange t-shirts to fill up the bloody Napa Valley.

The day their performance outweighs their nonsense, I'll leave them alone.

In this cases, however, they are a legitimate example of a Wing CC causing problems all over the country with extra-regulatory uniform directives.

[JohnKachenmeister]

If 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.

[Ned]

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).

Pardon me? Where did that come from?

[DNall]

Don't be incredulous...CAP regs are what govern CAP activities.

The regs say, and I will allow you the honor of looking it up, that CAP officers have no special dispensation before the law.  Thus, even according to CAP regs, one must follow the law.

We can safely assume that the Regs have been given a legal screening to insure they are in accordance with the LAW.

The AF REGS do not necessarily apply to CAP, neither does the UCMJ...thus, we should push for logical and clear regs.  They are what utlimately govern our actions in our CAP capacity.

Commanders have a certain latitude so long as that latitude is in the spirit of the reg...and not in that of the letter of it.  All other unethical use of a commander's authority is subject to the IG. 

Of course CAP regs govern CAP activities, as does the underlying law, both the regular law & the specific sections governing CAP. There is NO screening to ensure CAP regs follow the law, certainly not that they comply with state laws. Right now they have a restriction on medical services. If one of your GTMs is a doctor & they provide anything beyond basic first aid, they WILL be kicked out of CAP cause that's the orders & we got no insurance to cover them. Yet, in Texas & most other states, that same doctor would be required by law to stop & render aid to the extent of their training, and if they refuse (citing CAP orders or not) they will lose their license & be civilly AND criminally liable. Don't assume CAP has it together, that's just not the case.

You have to follow the law, and whatever the sections of US oir state law that govern CAP say, THEN you can look at regs, THEN where regs are unclear you can count on interpretations from people with teh authority to do so, and in extreme cases there will be temporary written or verbal changes by people that have that authority. Of course there is a little lattitude. I'm not about to follow a stupid rule when it clearly creates a safety problem. It's not that hard to figure out right from wrong in the world, & in this case we're given a whole book to help spell it out for us. Just do your best, try not to stretch the limits, and ask for help if you need it. Pretty easy.

[Major Carrales]

What is your point other than contention? 

Point is the LAW must be followed. 

This discuss concerns itself only within CAP structures of activities and how much latitude a commander has.  If a commander orders you to shot someone...that is wrong.  If you do pull the trigger you are on your own, the murder will be your undoing.  The crime will only be attached to the Commander as an accomplice.

This thread, however, is aimed at a Commander's mobility and command within CAP structures. 

[DNall]

No it's not. It started out talking about the nat CC's ability to modify regs on a word to allow wear of uniform items. YOU brodened it to talk about the constitution & underlying law. Others specified the military way of doing things & how CAP differs from that in a techincal legal sense & how that dif is tempered by a moral obligation. I'm not being contetious at all.

I stated each time that commanders have latitude to teh extent they have legal authority to modify those rules. In other words, the Nat CC can change any reg at any time verbally or in writting if it relates to health/safety; a Wg (or reg) CC can temporarily allow VERY small modifications within the range that have been approved by NHQ previously, but otherwise needs their consent. A Sq CC does not have the latitude to tell people it's informally okay to wear a dif hat at Sq meetings, because the Sq CC does not have the authority to fomally modify that reg. The Sq CC does have the authority to say cadets will stay out of this room, cause that's not covered in regs & only effects that individuals jurisdiction of command.

[Major Carrales]

No it's not. It started out talking about the nat CC's ability to modify regs on a word to allow wear of uniform items. YOU brodened it to talk about the constitution & underlying law. Others specified the military way of doing things & how CAP differs from that in a techincal legal sense & how that dif is tempered by a moral obligation. I'm not being contetious at all.

I stated each time that commanders have latitude to teh extent they have legal authority to modify those rules. In other words, the Nat CC can change any reg at any time verbally or in writting if it relates to health/safety; a Wg (or reg) CC can temporarily allow VERY small modifications within the range that have been approved by NHQ previously, but otherwise needs their consent. A Sq CC does not have the latitude to tell people it's informally okay to wear a dif hat at Sq meetings, because the Sq CC does not have the authority to fomally modify that reg. The Sq CC does have the authority to say cadets will stay out of this room, cause that's not covered in regs & only effects that individuals jurisdiction of command.

I brought up the Constitution to parallel how things might work in CAP as an example to illumanate how a person might interpret the regs but how the regs are the "Supreme Law of how CAP works." 

The SQ CC can set uniform(s) of the day and the like.

As an aside, we often "speculate" on these forum and then fool ourselves into thinking those "specuations" are "truths."  That is what happens in the tread like this one.

Obviously, someone has a problem with something and then manifests a thread like this to see if they can get "the general will."

The "General Will," as defined by people like Jean Jacques Rousseau is a fine way to run Switzerland...but a poor way to run the Civil Air Patrol.  Fact is, no matter how swaying your points might be, imagined or genuine, they still fall to the regs.

Now, the regs in a vacuum too can create "dangerous" interptations.  That is, in fact, the crux of this thread.

[BillB]

One of the problems of a verbal order is, how long is it valid for? Also if a vebal order is questionable as to validity and made impossable under normal Squadron operating conditions.
While a Commander legally can give a verbal order, is it valid for six months without being put into writing?

[Major Carrales]

One of the problems of a verbal order is, how long is it valid for? Also if a vebal order is questionable as to validity and made impossable under normal Squadron operating conditions.
While a Commander legally can give a verbal order, is it valid for six months without being put into writing?

I owuld say that verbal orders are precarious and best and invalid to a degree at worse.  If I want an order to stick, I'll write it out. 

Why?

Documentation.

Suppose I issue a verbal order that no one else heard but one Officer.  Hummmm....sounds like "trees falling in the forest."

Then there is the issue BillB brings up...standing order?

[fyrfitrmedic]

Kee-ripes.

I swear I'm gonna write a version of Godwin's Law that substitutes 'HMRS' for Naziism.

Let it go already - there's been enough whine about HMRS and bloody orange t-shirts to fill up the bloody Napa Valley.

The day their performance outweighs their nonsense, I'll leave them alone.

In this cases, however, they are a legitimate example of a Wing CC causing problems all over the country with extra-regulatory uniform directives.

C'mon, you can do better than that. Even your whinging on Capblog a year ago was better than that.

One of these days you're going to cite something concrete and incontrovertible re: PAWG and HMRS other than your 'the-color-of-orange' whinge and Hell will freeze over.

[RiverAux]

DNall, I started this thread and I know what I wanted to talk about --- who, if anybody in CAP can give an order that violates a CAP regulation?  Not about orders that violate a law and not about discretion given to specific commanders within existing CAP regulations. 

I have yet to see a citation in any CAP document (regulation, constitution, etc.) that gives anybody such discretion.  The closest thing I've found relates to emergency regulation changes and it pretty strongly implies that these have to be in writing and posted on the webpage in order to be enforced. 

To answer an earlier question, would I break a regulation in order to save a life?  If I thought it could be safely done, you bet your azz I would.  However, I wouldn't be doing it because someone "ordered" be to, I would be doing it as a voluntary individual choice (because, as pointed out earlier, CAP members don't "have" to do anything) and I would fully expect to be punished for it afterwards as should the person who gave the "order". 

Regarding the example I gave about driving in a car with a cadet with no other senior present...although this isn't an explicit regulation I consider it a violation of our duty under the cadet protection policy to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. 

[lordmonar]

DNall, I started this thread and I know what I wanted to talk about --- who, if anybody in CAP can give an order that violates a CAP regulation?  Not about orders that violate a law and not about discretion given to specific commanders within existing CAP regulations. 

I have yet to see a citation in any CAP document (regulation, constitution, etc.) that gives anybody such discretion.  The closest thing I've found relates to emergency regulation changes and it pretty strongly implies that these have to be in writing and posted on the webpage in order to be enforced. 

The discretion is implied in the mission statement of the commanders appointed over you.

It is that simple.

Yes everyone is supposed to follow the regulations....but there are situations that may not fit the regulations and that is why we appoint people to leadership positions.  They make the decisions and issue the orders.  You follow them (even if you think they violate a reg) at your peril.  The commander is weighing his duty to complete the mission and his duty to follow the regulations.  It is a judgment call every leader needs to be prepared to make.  When do you throw the BS flag to get the mission done. 

So...if we are talking real world getting the mission done sort of thing.  Every commander has some ability to countermand regulations.  He will have to justify that action to his superiors but not to his subordinates.  You may raise your objections...he may say "noted, proceed" and you carry on.  At that point it is his ass on the line not yours. (we are only talking regs here not laws).

Is this written anywhere?  NO.  Not even in the USAF will you find AFI 1-666 para 1.2.4 that says....In the following circumstance a commander may countermand written instructions.  You will not find that written because the whole point is that if you find your self in a gray area between Regs and Mission....you have to use your judgment and not a written instruction.  You will then get hid bound into what you can or cannot do and never get the mission done.

A commander can get fired for not following a regulations (just as anyone else can) but he can get fired quicker by failing to get his required mission done.

That is the high level leadership that CAP has consistently failed to teach (and the USAF too).  This level of leadership can almost never be taught out of a book.  Sometimes it can be passed on from an experienced mentor to a younger leader, but usually it has to be learned by doing.

[RiverAux]

Actually, if anyone follows this belief system it is a recipe for the stereotypical view of CAP leaders doing what they want despite the regulations. 

You may raise your objections...he may say "noted, proceed" and you carry on.  At that point it is his ass on the line not yours.

A CAP member can't use "I was just following orders" as an excuse.  As has been pointed out, you can't really order a CAP member to do anything.  Every CAP member makes an individual choice about following each and every "order" given to them.  If a CAP member decides to follow an order that contradicts regulations he is just as open to getting kicked out or not being covered by insurance, etc. as the person who gave it.  He also decided to do something that violated a regulation.  Now, if there was some gray area and the person giving the order was doing their best to interpret a regulation, maybe they're ok.  But if they decided to follow an order that clearly violated a regulation, they also voluntarily decided to break the regulations. 

[DNall]

DNall, I started this thread and I know what I wanted to talk about --- who, if anybody in CAP can give an order that violates a CAP regulation?  Not about orders that violate a law and not about discretion given to specific commanders within existing CAP regulations. 

I have yet to see a citation in any CAP document (regulation, constitution, etc.) that gives anybody such discretion.  The closest thing I've found relates to emergency regulation changes and it pretty strongly implies that these have to be in writing and posted on the webpage in order to be enforced. 

The discretion is implied in the mission statement of the commanders appointed over you.

It is that simple.

Yes everyone is supposed to follow the regulations....but there are situations that may not fit the regulations and that is why we appoint people to leadership positions.  They make the decisions and issue the orders.  You follow them (even if you think they violate a reg) at your peril.  The commander is weighing his duty to complete the mission and his duty to follow the regulations.  It is a judgment call every leader needs to be prepared to make.  When do you throw the BS flag to get the mission done. 

So...if we are talking real world getting the mission done sort of thing.  Every commander has some ability to countermand regulations.  He will have to justify that action to his superiors but not to his subordinates.  You may raise your objections...he may say "noted, proceed" and you carry on.  At that point it is his ass on the line not yours. (we are only talking regs here not laws).

Is this written anywhere?  NO.  Not even in the USAF will you find AFI 1-666 para 1.2.4 that says....In the following circumstance a commander may countermand written instructions.  You will not find that written because the whole point is that if you find your self in a gray area between Regs and Mission....you have to use your judgment and not a written instruction.  You will then get hid bound into what you can or cannot do and never get the mission done.

A commander can get fired for not following a regulations (just as anyone else can) but he can get fired quicker by failing to get his required mission done.

This is right.

There are VERY limited circumstances under which a commander can issue orders that contradict regs. One is when a higher law is on his side (ie Federal law, state law, AF regs in areas they have oversight, THEN CAP regs). A second case is when that commander has the authority to change/alter/supplement/etc a reg thru a formal proceedure, then they have a degree of latitude to do so informally (such as verbal orders) on a case by case or short term basis. And finally, there is a degree of latitude within your command to interpret broad or incomplete regs that not only leave themselves opme to interpretation but require it (so most CAP regs then).

Of course this contributes to CAP's image of peopel going off in their own direction & not following orders. It can be easily corrected by well thought out & thurough regs that don't leave a lot of room for movement, and by strong leadership that takes control of the situation & guides it to acceptable solutions. AF regs are better than ours, but they aren't spelled out as much as maybe ours should be, and that's cause they have a culture & trustworthy accountable leadership at most levels to keep things in the lines.

In CAP you do have to follow orders, and failing to do so is very much cause for permenant dismissal from the org. You volunteer for the org & are free to quit the org at any time. You are also free to accept or decline positions or missions. However, once you are in a position or on a mission, you do have to complete the orders given to you by the officers appointed over you, or you are & should be subject to disciplinary action up to & including a 2b. The only way that varries from the military is that you aren't bound by the UCMJ & you are free to drop your membership card on the table & resign from CAP if you disagree with orders you've been given.

That is the high level leadership that CAP has consistently failed to teach (and the USAF too).  This level of leadership can almost never be taught out of a book.  Sometimes it can be passed on from an experienced mentor to a younger leader, but usually it has to be learned by doing.

Leadership is caught, not taught.

I think that's what in-res ACSC & AWC are about, but I'm just going by what I've been told. In CAP we teach the material from OTS at RSC for Majors & LtCols Of course we don't teach upper level leadership. We bearly expect our most senior leaders with more than decade experience to function at entry level officer standards.

[Eclipse]

Kee-ripes.

I swear I'm gonna write a version of Godwin's Law that substitutes 'HMRS' for Naziism.

Let it go already - there's been enough whine about HMRS and bloody orange t-shirts to fill up the bloody Napa Valley.

The day their performance outweighs their nonsense, I'll leave them alone.

In this cases, however, they are a legitimate example of a Wing CC causing problems all over the country with extra-regulatory uniform directives.

C'mon, you can do better than that. Even your whinging on Capblog a year ago was better than that.

One of these days you're going to cite something concrete and incontrovertible re: PAWG and HMRS other than your 'the-color-of-orange' whinge and Hell will freeze over.

That's what I love about PAWG people - no matter how much evidence you
produce, they always >think< its about the uniform.

I couldn't care less about their orange t-shirts, and if they want to run around in white parade belts and call themselves "medics", whatever.

My issues are concrete, personally witnessed, and supported by documents, photographs, and AARs.

Despite being one of the best-funded, most "well-trained" Wings in CAP, when they actually were called to do something important, they couldn't even follow basic instructions, risked their own safety and the safety of the people they were there to help, and were ORDERED TO GO HOME.

What color t-shirts they were wearing doesn't seem too important in light of that, does it?

[fyrfitrmedic]

Kee-ripes.

I swear I'm gonna write a version of Godwin's Law that substitutes 'HMRS' for Naziism.

Let it go already - there's been enough whine about HMRS and bloody orange t-shirts to fill up the bloody Napa Valley.

The day their performance outweighs their nonsense, I'll leave them alone.

In this cases, however, they are a legitimate example of a Wing CC causing problems all over the country with extra-regulatory uniform directives.

C'mon, you can do better than that. Even your whinging on Capblog a year ago was better than that.

One of these days you're going to cite something concrete and incontrovertible re: PAWG and HMRS other than your 'the-color-of-orange' whinge and Hell will freeze over.

That's what I love about PAWG people - no matter how much evidence you
produce, they always >think< its about the uniform.

I couldn't care less about their orange t-shirts, and if they want to run around in white parade belts and call themselves "medics", whatever.

My issues are concrete, personally witnessed, and supported by documents, photographs, and AARs.

Despite being one of the best-funded, most "well-trained" Wings in CAP, when they actually were called to do something important, they couldn't even follow basic instructions, risked their own safety and the safety of the people they were there to help, and were ORDERED TO GO HOME.

What color t-shirts they were wearing doesn't seem too important in light of that, does it?

It's not about the uniform, it never was. It's about ignorant people spewing nonsense that always seems to start with references to uniform items. Whinge, whinge, whinge, and seldom anything of substance. I congratulate you in upholding that standard quite nicely.

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.

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.

[lordmonar]

Actually, if anyone follows this belief system it is a recipe for the stereotypical view of CAP leaders doing what they want despite the regulations. 

You may raise your objections...he may say "noted, proceed" and you carry on.  At that point it is his ass on the line not yours.

A CAP member can't use "I was just following orders" as an excuse.

To a point he can.  In the situation I am considering I was just following orders is a legitimate excuse.  Because all orders are considered lawful until proven otherwise.  This is a maxim on Active Duty as well.  Of course there are lines that must not be crossed and no one should follow a clearly unlawful order.  But we are not talking about that.  Unlawful is not the same as against regulations.  It is this distinction that we are talking about.  So no one can ever tell you to bust an FAA rule....but a commander can tell you to bust a CAP rule.  It is right and proper the you point out the rule violation but is also right and proper that you follow the direction of your commanders.

As has been pointed out, you can't really order a CAP member to do anything.  Every CAP member makes an individual choice about following each and every "order" given to them.  If a CAP member decides to follow an order that contradicts regulations he is just as open to getting kicked out or not being covered by insurance, etc. as the person who gave it.

Not necessarily.  Obviously if the member and the commander were trying to circumvent a regulation for their own convenience then yes they both could be kicked out.  But if the member acted in good faith and challenged the order and was told to do it any way he is between a rock and a hard place.  He can get kicked out for not following the order.  If he refused and the commander 2b him and the chain of command agreed that the order was proper even if it was against regulations....then the 2b would be up held and the member would be on the street.

He also decided to do something that violated a regulation.  Now, if there was some gray area and the person giving the order was doing their best to interpret a regulation, maybe they're ok.  But if they decided to follow an order that clearly violated a regulation, they also voluntarily decided to break the regulations.

That is true...but here is where everything breaks down.  Either you treat CAP as a military organization or you don't.  We are all volunteers and we are free to walk away at any time.  We don't have that luxury on active duty.  If we look at from a completely civilian point of veiw...then it does not matter any way at all.  We can be kicked out for any number of reason.  Debating about who can or can not countermand regulations is stupid.  The CEO of a corporation can do as he please so long as his board members don't get mad at him...no matter what the charter or by-laws say.  The same is true of CAP in that instance.  So CAWG and PAWG and all those other units out there that do their own thing are completely within their rights unless someone in the chain of command steps up and stops them.

Ergo any commander may do as he pleases until someone stops him.  We are not criminally liable for following CAP regulations.  We can be kicked out or even sued by the corporation but that is all.

So...how do you want to run the conversation?  Do we treat CAP and the regulations and verbal orders as if it were the military (even though they are not) or do we treat it just like IBM or any other corporation?

[RiverAux]

but 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. 

Either 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. 

all those other units out there that do their own thing are completely within their rights unless someone in the chain of command steps up and stops them.

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.

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 inpunity.  That hardly seems to follow the "military' example.