The Capmembers web site has an announcement on it that all work on revisions of any CAP Regulation is suspended. All of them will be rewritten from scratch.
Hmm.... ???
Quite a few Regs and Manuals are outdated and rather than doing them piecemeal, NHQ is doing everything over. Good move. No more complaining about small changes, no more rewriting to change 5 lines in a 30 page document.
Pssht...give me 3 months and I can re-write 39-1 into something we all can understand. No gray area. Plain-speak. Probably about 50 pages lighter, too.
I'll settle for 2 months and you help get our NCO slide decks done, pal!
FOCUS! (grin)
V/R
Spam
Quote from: Spam on December 10, 2015, 08:52:56 PM
I'll settle for 2 months and you help get our NCO slide decks done, pal!
FOCUS! (grin)
V/R
Spam
Ah, the perils of having your CC on CAPTalk...
Quote from: MacGruff on December 10, 2015, 06:14:59 PM
The Capmembers web site has an announcement on it that all work on revisions of any CAP Regulation is suspended. All of them will be rewritten from scratch.
Hmm.... ???
Big task. Has there been any 'call' for militia to staff the project?
According to the email I received, this is going to be a multi-year task. Given that and the reluctance by most of National to involve the vast unwashed masses in the regulation writing process, don't hold your breath waiting for the call to arms keyboards.
Quote from: arajca on December 11, 2015, 02:55:15 PM
According to the email I received, this is going to be a multi-year task. Given that and the reluctance by most of National to involve the vast unwashed masses in the regulation writing process, don't hold your breath waiting for the call to arms keyboards.
Which, of course, makes no sense. Some of us live in regulations and know what works and what doesn't...
This "rewrite" is all good in hypothesis, but how will this look in real life? Are members really going to "rewrite" the publications and start from essentially a "blank sheet"? Or are they really just going to make large edits to their already existing documents and ultimately resulting in the same thing as today?
Quote from: LSThiker on December 11, 2015, 03:13:33 PM
This "rewrite" is all good in hypothesis, but how will this look in real life? Are members really going to "rewrite" the publications and start from essentially a "blank sheet"? Or are they really just going to make large edits to their already existing documents and ultimately resulting in the same thing as today?
My perception of the process is that the publications will be (re)written by select individuals and teams who are subject matter experts in the particular areas of concern. I.E.: PD will most likely be done by Col Bryan (Thor) Cooper, and CCMSGT Eldridge and their committees.
Quote from: MSG Mac on December 11, 2015, 03:25:39 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on December 11, 2015, 03:13:33 PM
This "rewrite" is all good in hypothesis, but how will this look in real life? Are members really going to "rewrite" the publications and start from essentially a "blank sheet"? Or are they really just going to make large edits to their already existing documents and ultimately resulting in the same thing as today?
My perception of the process is that the publications will be (re)written by select individuals and teams who are subject matter experts in the particular areas of concern. I.E.: PD will most likely be done by Col Bryan (Thor) Cooper, and CCMSGT Eldridge and their committees.
So, the same team that hosed them up in the first place. Good call. I'm sure that there are plenty of SMEs in the field that should be included. Outside eyes are always good to use...
Quote from: LSThiker on December 11, 2015, 03:13:33 PM
This "rewrite" is all good in hypothesis, but how will this look in real life? Are members really going to "rewrite" the publications and start from essentially a "blank sheet"? Or are they really just going to make large edits to their already existing documents and ultimately resulting in the same thing as today?
If you read the documents linked, the answers are in there.
Quote from: JeffDG on December 11, 2015, 04:55:07 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on December 11, 2015, 03:13:33 PM
This "rewrite" is all good in hypothesis, but how will this look in real life? Are members really going to "rewrite" the publications and start from essentially a "blank sheet"? Or are they really just going to make large edits to their already existing documents and ultimately resulting in the same thing as today?
If you read the documents linked, the answers are in there.
What, read all of the post before flying off the handle??? That's not allowed here on CAPTalk! >:D
The only point where members are expressly involved is after the reg is rewritten. ONE squadron level senior member will chosen PER REGION to see if the reg make sense/is understandable/is usable.
The biggest thing I hope NHQ stresses is uniformity and interfacing of manuals. Everything should match and be concise to the same common point(s).
But I do think it's a good move.
Quote from: JeffDG on December 11, 2015, 04:55:07 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on December 11, 2015, 03:13:33 PM
This "rewrite" is all good in hypothesis, but how will this look in real life? Are members really going to "rewrite" the publications and start from essentially a "blank sheet"? Or are they really just going to make large edits to their already existing documents and ultimately resulting in the same thing as today?
If you read the documents linked, the answers are in there.
I did and that is the hypothesis I am talking about. Plans look good on paper, but are often not executed in that manner.
Quote from: LSThiker on December 11, 2015, 07:48:02 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on December 11, 2015, 04:55:07 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on December 11, 2015, 03:13:33 PM
This "rewrite" is all good in hypothesis, but how will this look in real life? Are members really going to "rewrite" the publications and start from essentially a "blank sheet"? Or are they really just going to make large edits to their already existing documents and ultimately resulting in the same thing as today?
If you read the documents linked, the answers are in there.
I did and that is the hypothesis I am talking about. Plans look good on paper, but are often not executed in that manner.
+1
This is where I fall when I hear about rewrites, knowing first hand that paper vs reality doesn't always fit together, and a major issue is that you don't see those revisions to reflect on what actually works or reinforcement of what's on paper.
If it's a "clean slate" approach, and only the already anointed need apply we've nothing to worry about. The committee of authors will either write coherent regs (and neglect their other duties) or do their other duties (and slap something together). 24/7/365 is a wonderful limitation on even the most ambitious who live on a fixed or declining budget.
While I've got no experience writing CAP regulations, I've got plenty with writing regs in my day job and I am pretty sure that they won't really be starting from a blank sheet of paper.
I do hope that do approach every one of them with the question, "Do we REALLY need this regulation in the first place?" and if so, "What is the minimal amount of regulation that we need for this topic?"
Quote from: RiverAux on December 12, 2015, 01:54:17 PM
I do hope that do approach every one of them with the question, "Do we REALLY need this regulation in the first place?" and if so, "What is the minimal amount of regulation that we need for this topic?"
+1
Time has a way of adding weight to us all, and regulations are certainly no exception. You're 100% right that it needs to start by defining what they hope to achieve or what problem they need to address when authoring these regs and then go from there. Less can certainly be more if it allows focused and directed guidance and not simply adding bureaucracy for bureaucracy 's sake!
You guys do realize that the entire process is laid out in considerable detail, right?
Quote5.2. Recreating Regulations
The following steps are offered for consideration. For each "family of regulations" (e.g.
membership or operations):
a. Scour each regulation/manual for directive statements. These are usually indicated
by wills, shalls, and musts; however, not all directive statements include these words. To
aid in what could be an arduous task, suggest functional teams of subject matter experts
nominated by the OPR be established to distribute the workload.
b. Transfer the directive statements to a new file. For each entry, identify the directing
policy (i.e. BoG policy, AF policy or federal statute). Undoubtedly, this will be
challenging, but is vital to identifying true requirements. It is conceivable that for
longstanding requirements no record of the governing policy exists. In these cases,
functional teams should make a determination on if the directive statement serves the
best interest of the Corporation. If so, the requirement should be considered for
retention.
c. Directive statements without accompanying policy and not in the best interest of the
Corporation should be considered for deletion. Note: although many requirements
were enacted by past National Boards and National Executive Committees when they
had policy making authority, caution is advised when considering retaining such
requirements for the reason identified in Assumption b (see page 5).
d. By reviewing families of regulations, any redundancy or conflicts within regulations
should be eliminated.
e. Remove all examples (e.g. the sample OI found in CAPR 5-4, attachment 1) and place
as a template on the publications website. Doing so provides members with an
effective tool. Additionally, the regulation will not have to change if the
template/example requires adjustment.
f. Keep in mind regulations are for establishing a standard or evoking a behavior from
membership. If the language doesn't fit into these two categories, rather it's more of a
"how to," the language should probably go into a non-directive pamphlet.
g. CAP should consider employing a two-publication construct whereby mandatory
compliance items are recorded in a regulation (directive) and non-mandatory/"how to"
items are placed in pamphlets (non-directive). The pamphlet should align with the
number of the regulation (i.e. CAPR 60-1 marries up with CAPP 60-1). It is conceivable
that CAP might want to standardize a particular process ("how to"). In this case, the
process should be in the regulation and not the pamphlet. In short, the question
becomes: does CAP want to regulate how members accomplish requirements or only
that the requirements ultimately need to be accomplished?
NOTE – if CAP elects to use a two-publication construct, it is recommended that forms,
certificates and visual aids follow the same series numbering format. For example,
CAPR 60-1 might direct the use of CAPF 60, CAPVA 61 or CAPC 60-1. See paragraph
5.1.d.1).
h. Pamphlets should be the document that highlights recommended means or
identified "best practices" for attaining regulatory compliance. Placing most "how to"
processes in the non-directive pamphlet provides freedom of action and inspires
members' innovation on how best to accomplish the mandatory item (regulation).
i. Once the TRUE requirements are known, then recreate the regulation and
accompanying pamphlet(s). Caution must be used to not introduce language that
directs another publication. For example CAPR 52-16, Cadet Program Management,
directs that the reader "...will complete the RST in accordance with CAPP 52-12..."
thereby making a pamphlet a mandatory compliance item.
j. After a regulation is recreated and before staffing for approval, OPRs will apply the
"Napoleon's Corporal Test" to validate the reasonableness, sustainability, efficacy and
value of the publication. In doing so, each region will select one member from the
squadron level. This group of eight will review the proposed regulation for ease of
understanding of intent and ability to sustain compliance with requirements. Regions
should select members based on nature of the publication (i.e. functional specific versus
general membership related publications).
k. In lockstep with recreating the publications, functional teams need to be cognizant of
developing associated tools that will enable members to easily comply with
requirements. For online tools, it is imperative that functional leaders work closely with
software developers to ensure the resources effectively aid members in sustaining
compliance and not produce a needless burden.
l. At the time of approval, CAP/CC should establish an "Effective As" date for each
regulation that allows members sufficient time to review, comprehend and prepare for
the requirements of the upcoming regulation.
that needs to be re-written and condensed too. >:D
National should broaden the base of who it uses to contribute to the initial drafting process -- take ideas from the field, permit an initial review by some subject matter experts at all levels.
Once that's done, nce they gathered some data and "public comment", then it makes sense to keep the final editing committees small and efficient.
Quote from: THRAWN on December 11, 2015, 03:29:20 PM
So, the same team that hosed them up in the first place. Good call. I'm sure that there are plenty of SMEs in the field that should be included. Outside eyes are always good to use...
Agreed, even if it's just to play the Devil's Advocate. I think posting an open comment period here on CAPTALK would do the trick
Quote from: SARDOC on December 14, 2015, 06:30:01 PM
Agreed, even if it's just to play the Devil's Advocate. I think posting an open comment period here on CAPTALK would do the trick
Sounds like you want the rewrite to crash and burn at the end of the runway.
Actually, I find the process defined to be quite appropriate. It's not a dog's breakfast of "I want blah blah in the regs"
The process, simplified, seems to be (and I have no insight other than what I've read)
1. Go through the current regs and find all directive statements (shall, must, etc. + anything else that's directive)
2. For each directive, find a controlling source of policy (US Code, CFR, BoG Policy)
3. If no controlling policy, put it on the pile to consider deletion
4. Regroup everything more logically
I'm sure that for #3 they will find some that should remain, but then the process seems to be to go to the BoG to have a formal policy adopted, with appropriate consideration of that policy from our governing body that attaches to that process.
I like the overall principle of "For every directive, there must be a source of policy mandating that directive" That's a HUGE step in the right direction. It moves from "Well, we've always done it that way." to "This is why we do that."
You guys have read the notice about the regs rewrite that is on NHQ's web page, right?
Many of your questions and concerns are addressed there.
Quote from: PHall on December 15, 2015, 04:30:29 AM
You guys have read the notice about the regs rewrite that is on NHQ's web page, right?
Many of your questions and concerns are addressed there.
Yep. It's funny that the guidance is written in a manner that is exactly the style that they're apparently trying to get away from. Clear as mud bureaucratese...
Does this include CAPPs as well as CAPRs?
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on December 15, 2015, 07:27:33 PM
Does this include CAPPs as well as CAPRs?
I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't already included.
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on December 15, 2015, 07:27:33 PM
Does this include CAPPs as well as CAPRs?
If you read the documents, your question is quite clearly covered.
Quote from: JeffDG on December 15, 2015, 08:20:16 PM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on December 15, 2015, 07:27:33 PM
Does this include CAPPs as well as CAPRs?
If you read the documents, your question is quite clearly covered.
And rather than read it, I thought I'd just ask people that already have.
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on December 15, 2015, 10:10:24 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on December 15, 2015, 08:20:16 PM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on December 15, 2015, 07:27:33 PM
Does this include CAPPs as well as CAPRs?
If you read the documents, your question is quite clearly covered.
And rather than read it, I thought I'd just ask people that already have.
Nah, we're going to test
your reading comprehension and let you read it. There will be a test! >:D
Quote from: PHall on December 16, 2015, 04:46:16 AM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on December 15, 2015, 10:10:24 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on December 15, 2015, 08:20:16 PM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on December 15, 2015, 07:27:33 PM
Does this include CAPPs as well as CAPRs?
If you read the documents, your question is quite clearly covered.
And rather than read it, I thought I'd just ask people that already have.
Nah, we're going to test your reading comprehension and let you read it. There will be a test! >:D
*Walks out of the classroom to go smoke in the faculty parking lot*
Quote from: Ed Bos on December 15, 2015, 03:18:17 AM
Quote from: SARDOC on December 14, 2015, 06:30:01 PM
Agreed, even if it's just to play the Devil's Advocate. I think posting an open comment period here on CAPTALK would do the trick
Sounds like you want the rewrite to crash and burn at the end of the runway.
No, Not at all. The Devil's Advocate is to just evaluate all of the likely scenarios and pitfalls that we as an organization would want to avoid. Somebody has to challenge the regulations looking for interpretations or loopholes not intended by the author and the approving authority.
It also keeps the regulation committees honest, instead of just appointing people who will just nod their head yes and say yes to every outlandish boondoogle.
It's better to have someone on the committee that will address these concerns before an open comment period and definately before being exploited by someone misusing or misreading the regulation.
Quote from: SARDOC on December 16, 2015, 08:43:10 PM
It's better to have someone on the committee that will address these concerns before an open comment period and definately before being exploited by someone misusing or misreading the regulation.
Apparently, they agree with you. See 5.2(j).
And again to all, I strongly suggest actually reading the proposed plan for making this happen.
Quote from: JeffDG on December 16, 2015, 09:40:08 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on December 16, 2015, 08:43:10 PM
It's better to have someone on the committee that will address these concerns before an open comment period and definately before being exploited by someone misusing or misreading the regulation.
Apparently, they agree with you. See 5.2(j).
And again to all, I strongly suggest actually reading the proposed plan for making this happen.
I did read it, I was just elaborating on the concept of operations. Thanks though.