Does anyone know what a Unit Commander must sign and what can be delegated to staff officers?
I went on a search for this info once and didn't turn up much...there are the items for which specific people are specified (like for cadet promotions), but not much else that I've found...
Prudence would say that delegating signatory authority is not wise. If it is under your authority, you are responsible and liable for it. While you can delegate responsibility, you can't delegate liability and if it hits the fan, you will still be held accountable. "I didn't know he signed that" doesn't cover your butt. Giving someone the authority to sign what you are responsible for means that you are trusting them to make the same intelligent decision you would in all cases based on your experience, which they don't have. Most of us make enough mistakes without allowing others to make mistakes for us..
A staff officer has automatic authority to sign "For the Commander" in matters pertaining to his area of staff responsibility. All other signature authority must be delegated in writing to be "For the Commander."
"A commander is responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do." This maxim is valid regardless of who signs what.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on May 11, 2007, 01:17:08 PM
A staff officer has automatic authority to sign "For the Commander" in matters pertaining to his area of staff responsibility. All other signature authority must be delegated in writing to be "For the Commander."
Could you please point me to the spot in the applicable regulation that says to use "For the Commander" in ones signature block when preparing correspondence pertaining to ones area of staff responsibility?
I've always used "By Direction"
Quote from: shorning on May 11, 2007, 05:16:03 PM
Could you please point me to the spot in the applicable regulation that says to use "For the Commander" in ones signature block when preparing correspondence pertaining to ones area of staff responsibility?
CAPR 10-1 used to stipulate that only the administrative officer could use the 'for the commander' phrase in the signature block.
I just checked the current version, and fouind nothing on the subject, either limiting or authorizing its use.
Quote from: capchiro on May 11, 2007, 11:55:07 AM
While you can delegate responsibility, you can't delegate liability and if it hits the fan, you will still be held accountable.
The way that I remembered it from some kind of training in the dark ages was that you could delegate authority but not responsibility.
My tongue is deeply in my cheek, as that was meant as a good-natured quibble, not a thrown gauntlet, by the way.. And yeah, you did ultimately say basically the same thing..
I've made the same point as yours with my squadron commander. Unless you can trust the person with your career when they're out of your sight, maybe you shouldn't delegate certain things to them. You've only got one backside, after all. And certain people in CAP are good at filling out 2Bs even if they can't do anything else...
V/R,
The CAPF 53, Signature Verification Card, requires a real signature.
Quote from: SarDragon on May 11, 2007, 09:12:59 PM
The CAPF 53, Signature Verification Card, requires a real signature.
Therein is your answer. It's spelled out who needs to sign a verification card, and those are the only signature valid (as specified) for official correspondence to NHQ. Now as a practical matter, andyone can sign w/o the "for commander" line on standard corresponsence. You only need the "for the commander" line when making a policy statement, opplan, or official action (most all of which should be verbally approved).
Quote from: DNall on May 11, 2007, 09:36:22 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on May 11, 2007, 09:12:59 PM
The CAPF 53, Signature Verification Card, requires a real signature.
Therein is your answer. It's spelled out who needs to sign a verification card, and those are the only signature valid (as specified) for official correspondence to NHQ. Now as a practical matter, andyone can sign w/o the "for commander" line on standard corresponsence. You only need the "for the commander" line when making a policy statement, opplan, or official action (most all of which should be verbally approved).
But isn't the 53 mostly for testing/cadet promotion?
Yes, all testing, including AFIADL. All units should have one on file at NHQ, with a copy at wing.
Yes testing & cadet programs are the only things I know of that record official sigs besides the commander, so beyond the narrow area in which each of those subordinates work, the CC s responsible for all other signatures.
Is there something specific we're worried about here, or is this just a debate in symantics? Fact is the Wg CC is the lowest corp officer so he/she is legally responsible for everything, no matter who signs it, and sig authority for some things are delegated to CC & a couple subordinates.
^^ You better believe CAP will come after anyone with a signature on a 2A if they lose laptops or high end DOD electronics.
Sure, just like they'd chase a supply officer that's actually at fault, even though the commander is responsible, but ultimately the Wg CC is the corporate officer & responsible for what happens. They are responsible for everything that happens in their command even if they are out of town & know nothing about it. I've seen 22yo kids put in jail under the same circumstances. I'm not saying you're free to run wild & no worries cause the WG CC is the only one that can be held accountable, that's not strictly true, but they are legally responsible & the burden of proof on anyone else is much higher.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 11, 2007, 06:03:14 PM
Quote from: shorning on May 11, 2007, 05:16:03 PM
Could you please point me to the spot in the applicable regulation that says to use "For the Commander" in ones signature block when preparing correspondence pertaining to ones area of staff responsibility?
CAPR 10-1 used to stipulate that only the administrative officer could use the 'for the commander' phrase in the signature block.
I just checked the current version, and fouind nothing on the subject, either limiting or authorizing its use.
I know what it
used to say (hence my question), but it's not in the current 10-1. It's not part of the current memorandum-style letter format. As someone alluded to earlier, staff members are assumed to being preforming their duties on behalf of the commander. Therefore, "For the Commander" is superfluous.
Quote from: shorning on May 12, 2007, 01:29:44 AM
I know what it used to say (hence my question), but it's not in the current 10-1. It's not part of the current memorandum-style letter format. As someone alluded to earlier, staff members are assumed to being preforming their duties on behalf of the commander. Therefore, "For the Commander" is superfluous.
Agreed, it is superfluous....however, apparently it is no longer limited in its use.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 12, 2007, 04:20:46 AM
Quote from: shorning on May 12, 2007, 01:29:44 AM
I know what it used to say (hence my question), but it's not in the current 10-1. It's not part of the current memorandum-style letter format. As someone alluded to earlier, staff members are assumed to being preforming their duties on behalf of the commander. Therefore, "For the Commander" is superfluous.
Agreed, it is superfluous....however, apparently it is no longer limited in its use.
Like I said:
Quote from: shorning on May 12, 2007, 01:29:44 AM
It's not part of the current memorandum-style letter format.
I tend (when not in command!) to follow the school of thought "if it is not explicitly prohibited, it's authorized"!!!
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 12, 2007, 04:27:40 AM
I tend (when not in command!) to follow the school of thought "if it is not explicitly prohibited, it's authorized"!!!
You are supposed to add an asterisk and fine print that says "*Except in the case of uniforms"
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 12, 2007, 04:27:40 AM
I tend (when not in command!) to follow the school of thought "if it is not explicitly prohibited, it's authorized"!!!
Go ahead and see how far that gets you in life!
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 12, 2007, 04:27:40 AM
I tend (when not in command!) to follow the school of thought "if it is not explicitly prohibited, it's authorized"!!!
Actually, after comparing notes with a Navy Chief, we informally came to the conclusion that that approximates Navy thinking, while AF thinking is closer to "if it is not explicitly authorized, it's prohibited." Your mileage may vary, of course...
V/R,
Quote from: LTC_Gadget on May 12, 2007, 08:17:15 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 12, 2007, 04:27:40 AM
I tend (when not in command!) to follow the school of thought "if it is not explicitly prohibited, it's authorized"!!!
Actually, after comparing notes with a Navy Chief, we informally came to the conclusion that that approximates Navy thinking, while AF thinking is closer to "if it is not explicitly authorized, it's prohibited." Your mileage may vary, of course...
V/R,
True enough...but then again, most of the time we're not on AFAMs, hence not USAF Aux....so, as they'd say over on The Admiral's Check-in thread, "any port in a storm"!
The Rules According To Kachenmeister:
1. If it is not specifically prohibited, it is authorized.
2. If it IS specifically prohibited, but there is no mechanism in place to catch violators, it is authorized.
3. If it IS prohibited, AND there is a mechanism in place to catch violators, but you think you can come up with a plausible excuse, it is authorized.
4. If a regulation is so poorly written that it can reasonably be interpreted in more than one way, they way that most closely matches what it is you want to do is the correct interpretation.
And, the Golden Rule:
"It is easier to apologize afterward than to seek permission before."
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on May 13, 2007, 05:00:31 PM
The Rules According To Kachenmeister:
1. If it is not specifically prohibited, it is authorized.
2. If it IS specifically prohibited, but there is no mechanism in place to catch violators, it is authorized.
3. If it IS prohibited, AND there is a mechanism in place to catch violators, but you think you can come up with a plausible excuse, it is authorized.
4. If a regulation is so poorly written that it can reasonably be interpreted in more than one way, they way that most closely matches what it is you want to do is the correct interpretation.
And, the Golden Rule:
"It is easier to apologize afterward than to seek permission before."
A man after my own heart!
I presume you subscribe to Murphy's Laws. Axioms, & Corollaries?