Uniform Phasing out

[Eclipse]

I don't disagree at all this isn't really the best plan, but when discussing constitutionally-based rights, we need to separate what
"is" from what "we like".

Congress generally builds in effective dates to new laws, along with a boilerplate means to notify the constituency, but that doesn't change
their respective rights and authority.

[billford1]

^ Wait....CAP-USAF will agree to extend the phase out date??  That means all of the reasons to get rid of it (supposedly) coming from the USAF is outrageous. 

If it was such a big concern as many make it out to be, they would have immediately suspended wear of said uniform.

When the AF allowed this uniform to be announced with an ICL with almost no opposition I wonder why it took so long for them to have such a change of mind and then say it was never really approved.   If they are serious about setting the wear out date and then designing a new uniform for us I hope they intend to issue the uniform to CAP members.

[JoeTomasone]

Of course the whole "is it binding or not?" argument could be put to bed if, administratively, NHQ got their act together...   

Precisely.

I'm not saying that the BoG lacks the authority to make policy -- far from it. 

What I am saying is that until that policy is properly incorporated into regulations/ICLs, it is not binding on the membership.

Yes, Congress has the undeniable authority to enact legislation, but until it's signed by the President, it is NOT binding law.   There is a procedure that the law requires to be followed, just as the BoG/NHQ has a procedure that the CAP Constitution and CAPR 5-4 requires to be followed. 

A bill becomes law when it is signed by the President.

A policy becomes binding when it is properly incorporated into an ICL OR is incorporated into a draft regulation that is submitted for member comment and subsequently approved by CAP/EX, CAP/CC, and published.

The fact that NHQ lately seems to prefer to improperly short-circuit the proper procedure on matters such as uniform changes does not change the fact that such actions are contrary to regulations; and therefore are invalid.   The result is that the BoG policies, which are themselves valid, are not currently valid regulations that are binding on the membership.   NHQ could fix it in short order by simply following the proper procedure.

A Wing Commander issues a supplement for 60-1.   CAPR 5-4 certainly holds that a Wing Commander has the authority to issue a supplement.    However, proper procedure for issuing a supplement to 60-1 requires NHQ approval.    If such approval is not sought, is the supplement valid? 

[FW]

^I defer to the Master rated Barraks lawyer.  However, the BoG may write a regulation, change a regulation, or order a regulation published without any comment from the membership. That body is not bound by CAP regulations or AFI's.  Regulations originating from the BoG may only be changed by the BoG.  They may even suspend any regulation (or the C&BL's) when it suits their needs.  Since the BoG approved the CSU, I wonder if this whole exercise is just one big cluster ....? 

[JoeTomasone]

However, the BoG may write a regulation, change a regulation, or order a regulation published without any comment from the membership.

Cite, please.

Regulations and manuals may only be issued by National Headquarters.

The Board of Governors may direct the National Commander to issue, modify or rescind regulations
or portions of regulations. Regulations, or portions of regulations issued, modified or rescinded by the
National Commander pursuant to written instructions of the Board of Governors shall not be subject to
the ratification by the National Board.

...And those would need to go through the CAPR 5-4 procedure or an ICL if the criteria for issuing an ICL is met.

Regulations and manuals may only be issued by National Headquarters. The following responsibilities relate to the management of regulations and manuals:

a. The National Board/National Executive Committee/Board of Governors will establish policies in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws of Civil Air Patrol. The National Commander may establish immediate regulations under the provisions of Article XX, paragraph 3, of the Constitution of Civil Air Patrol, when circumstances dictate.

The National Commander, upon declaration of a situation requiring immediate action due to a state of
emergency or an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, may promulgate
emergency regulations without the ratification of a majority vote of the National Board. Such emergency
regulation shall remain in force unless revoked by a majority vote of the National Board.

The BoG can alter the CONSTITUTION by a majority vote, but they cannot directly issue regulations.   They can only promulgate policy or direct that regulations be issued - but these must be codified INTO regulations by NHQ.   I should add that those regulations dictating this procedure are in force because the Board established them; if they didn't agree with them, they could easily alter them. 

[FW]

Joe, you are correct in citing the appropriate parts of the C&BL.  However, re read the above: "Regulations, or portions of regulations issued, modified or rescinded by the National Commander pursuant to written instructions of the Board of Governors shall not be subject to the ratification by the National Board." (this has come to mean no comments by the membership either)
Also, since the BoG may suspend the Constitution and/or bylaws at any time,  they really can do anything they want.  How do you think they got rid of HWSNBNed.
As our CAP/NLO has stated: "The Board of Governors has superplenary rights".  They are above the regulations of CAP; only answerable to congress.  Believe me, I just don't make this stuff up.

[Eclipse]

A policy becomes binding when it is properly incorporated into an ICL OR is incorporated into a draft regulation that is submitted for member comment and subsequently approved by CAP/EX, CAP/CC, and published.

I'd grant you that new rulings don't become practically enforcible until they are published, and in theory we're all just volunteers working together towards the same ends, but that doesn't mean their decisions aren't immediately binding.  If they decide tomorrow that everyone must do "x", they must do "x" - whether you could discipline a member for not doing "x" because of improper or non-existent notification of the field would be a decision for the chain of command and maybe the MARB, but that doesn't change the fact that we all have to do "x".
As a matter of process, requests for comment go out before decisions are made, not after the gavel falls.

Further, I will continue to hold that decisions made which might violate USAF process, directives, or just hack them off, are not the problem or purview of the membership, either.  The rank and file's chain ends with the BoG.  If they tell us do do something which by higher regulation they don't have the authority to do, we still have to do it unless we are willing to challenge that decision directly, via process, to the USAF.  If our only response is local grumbling, then we need to obey directives of our chain.  Absent a "Supreme Court of the CAP", again the decisions about disciplinary action would be through the chain or the MARB if it became applicable.

Directives that violate USAF AFI's or similar are the problem of the BOG, NEC, and CAPFLT001, not the rank and file membership.

A Wing Commander issues a supplement for 60-1.   CAPR 5-4 certainly holds that a Wing Commander has the authority to issue a supplement.    However, proper procedure for issuing a supplement to 60-1 requires NHQ approval.    If such approval is not sought, is the supplement valid?

This isn't even a relevant comparison.  Wing Commanders are not ultimate authorities in regards to their responsibilities.  They are fully
bound by specific regulations as to where they can supplement regulations, and in all cases a supplement can only strengthen or compliment a reg, it can't weaken it or change it substantially.  As pointed out, this is not so with the BoG or NEC, who's power come directly from the Constitution and who can change, supplement, or null regulations at will.

[JoeTomasone]

Joe, you are correct in citing the appropriate parts of the C&BL.  However, re read the above: "Regulations, or portions of regulations issued, modified or rescinded by the National Commander pursuant to written instructions of the Board of Governors shall not be subject to the ratification by the National Board." (this has come to mean no comments by the membership either)

Actually, I believe that this addresses Section 2:

2. Except as provided in Article X paragraph 2.c., and paragraph 3 and 4 of this article, all CAP policies
(policies promulgated by the National Board or National Commander) shall be ratified by a majority vote
of the National Board.

...And thusly states that while the CAP/CC can issue emergency regulations that must be voted on by the NB, regulations issued at the direction of the BoG does NOT require such approval.    And rightly so.

Also, since the BoG may suspend the Constitution and/or bylaws at any time,  they really can do anything they want.

Technically true, but if they went overboard, I would expect that CAP-USAF and/or Congress would take action.  Hopefully we never have to find out.

  How do you think they got rid of HWSNBNed.

Near as I can tell, and from what I remember that I read at the time, it was done in accordance with Article XV of the CAP Constitution. 

As our CAP/NLO has stated: "The Board of Governors has superplenary rights".  They are above the regulations of CAP; only answerable to congress.  Believe me, I just don't make this stuff up.

Well, then the NLO is not entirely correct.   The BoG can only act IAW the CAP Constitution.   The fact that they can amend it by a majority vote does not obviate the fact that they must follow what they have promulgated.

1. The Board of Governors shall, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Air Patrol Constitution
and Bylaws, be the governing body of Civil Air Patrol and shall govern, direct and manage the affairs of
the corporation.

[FW]

Sorry Joe.  Even though I wish you were correct, the BoG (by majority vote, of course) has suspended the constitution for the matter above.  CAP-USAF has no authority over the BoG.  The SECAF only has authority over the 4 members he/she selects.  Public Law is what must be referred to here.  And, from what I've been constantly beaten up on by those who have the power, it's what we must live with.  If you think this is wrong, it's time to talk to your congressman about it.

[JoeTomasone]

the BoG (by majority vote, of course) has suspended the constitution for the matter above

Can you cite, sir?  I must have missed that.

[FW]

I can only repeat what the BoG members told me.  Since there was no constitutional means for the BoG to remove the commander, the BoG voted to suspend the rules to deal with it.  That's what happened with HWSNBN'd.  Will they do it again?  I have no idea.  Could they?  Yes.  The BoG is the final say in CAP.  It's that simple.  Everyone else just plays. 

[JoeTomasone]

I can only repeat what the BoG members told me.  Since there was no constitutional means for the BoG to remove the commander, the BoG voted to suspend the rules to deal with it.  That's what happened with HWSNBN'd.  Will they do it again?  I have no idea.  Could they?  Yes.  The BoG is the final say in CAP.  It's that simple.  Everyone else just plays. 

Unless the Constitution was amended since then, seems pretty clear they could have done so "legitimately":

The National Commander or National Vice Commander may be removed from office for
personal misconduct involving moral turpitude which creates an appearance of serious impropriety to the
public or which may discredit or embarrass the Civil Air Patrol and/or the United States Air Force.

[FW]

But that "right" is the exclusive right of the National Board.

[JoeTomasone]

But that "right" is the exclusive right of the National Board.

*ZOINKS*

You're right, I missed that part.

The removal was never voted on???

[FW]

^Not by the National Board.  It was never given a chance.  The Board of Governors didn't really vote to remove him from office either.  They just voted him "off the island" all together. 

[Spike]

And back to how uniform phasing out is a game to most.

Seems like the National Commander extended the phase out date of the CSU, but by next september we need to replace everything metal (grade, cutouts etc.) with grey slides.  Now we have a CSU that is by all intents and purposes identical to the AF-Style (not the jacket of course).  It can be worn until 2012.

Why can we not just go with this new incarnation of the CSU, and not get rid of it??

[FW]

That, Spike, would be logical.  I don't think it will happen for that reason.

[NC Hokie]

Now we have a CSU that is by all intents and purposes identical to the AF-Style (not the jacket of course).  It can be worn until 2012.

Why can we not just go with this new incarnation of the CSU, and not get rid of it??

I have a suspicion that CAP leadership might be hoping for just this result, as modifying an outgoing uniform makes little sense under any other circumstances.

[Hawk200]

I have a suspicion that CAP leadership might be hoping for just this result, as modifying an outgoing uniform makes little sense under any other circumstances.

I'd support it. I would have supported it in the first place if this is what it would have been. In this incarnation, it's truly a CAP unique uniform, and not an attempt to superficially look like an Air Force one.

[JoeTomasone]

Well, two problems:

1.  If you wear the Jacket with it, still looks too AF.

2.  If you don't wear the Jacket with it, it's just the white/grey with different pants.  What's the point?