Code of ethics now the prime directive

[Robborsari]

Fresh off of e-services our ethics reg, 35-10 is now CAPR1-1.  No other changes besides the number but I think its good to put it first.   :clap:

[FlyTiger77]

I am curious where regulations like "Organization of the Civil Air Patrol" will fall in a new numbering scheme if Ethics is 1-1.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Probably where it's always been -- in the 20 series.

I'd like to see us overhaul the whole regulation scheme to match the Air Force's. Each series starts with an Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) that's a sweeping policy and philosophy document, something that's a guiding force for everything captured in the details of regulations in the series. Under our current scheme, that means that the CAP policy directive that underlies personnel matters would be CAPPD 35, and then you'd have regulations and manuals in that series starting with 35-1. Make sense? It's something we're missing because our overall approach to regulation is incremental and piecemeal.

[BillB]

The CAP regulation numbering system started when CAP was under the Army Air Force. It followed the Army numbe3ring system. When the change to USAF was made, the system remained for both the Air Force and CAP. The change to the USAF system was made in the 1980's (I believe) but CAP didn't follow along. At that time all CAP regulations were printed and distributed. The cost to change all regulation numbering and reprinting was to high for CAP to consider. Now it would be a massive effort to convert to the USAF numbering system.

[JeffDG]

The CAP regulation numbering system started when CAP was under the Army Air Force. It followed the Army numbe3ring system. When the change to USAF was made, the system remained for both the Air Force and CAP. The change to the USAF system was made in the 1980's (I believe) but CAP didn't follow along. At that time all CAP regulations were printed and distributed. The cost to change all regulation numbering and reprinting was to high for CAP to consider. Now it would be a massive effort to convert to the USAF numbering system.

What number a reg has is really of no consequence to me.

But the principle of having a high-level "Policy Document" that sets forth the goals and objectives, then having regulations that flow out of that overall policy is certainly a sound one.

[bflynn]

I've read this and see it includes a list of core values.  Does anyone know where the list of core values comes from?  Is that a list of core values that leadership wishes we had or are they the list the they think we have?

I ask because professionally, I frequently run across mission statements and core value statements that have no match to reality.  What happens is that high leadership gets together and hammers out a wish list of what they wish the mission was or what they wish the core values were, then they publish them.  Everyone reads, nods their heads and goes on doing what they do.

My reason for asking is in terms of evaluating things that we do.  Things that support and build core values and which are in line with the mission statement should be done.  Things that are in conflict with core values or the mission statement should not be done.  It's how you keep everyone on the same page and how you live your mission and values.  Otherwise, it's a conflict, nobody knows what to do or why.  Everyone just does what they want and pride and professionalism are an afterthought.

That's my experience...some have commented that I'm negative, but I suspect that comes from what I do for a living, solving problems all the time makes one look for inconsistencies.

[Ed Bos]

THe Civil Air Patrol's Core Values flow from the USAF Core Values.

The USAF has published a pamphlet known as, "The Little Blue Book," that explains the thoughts behind choosing their Core Values.

You can refer to that document for additional details: http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/document/afd-070906-003.pdf

[bflynn]

So they're handed to us to live.

Are they what we actually have as values?

[Ed Bos]

So they're handed to us to live.

Are they what we actually have as values?

That's a question each one of us needs to answer for themselves.

IMHO, many people do an admirable job in this, but that's because each day they strive to be better than they were the day before (even if they don't notice the effort because it's become ingrained). I think we should all work on this everyday, not because we lack any of these values, but the constant refinement speaks to a pursuit of excellence.

If you'd like to know if "we" have these as values, I do.  If you're having trouble answering this for yourself, you may wish to discuss it with a CAP Chaplain... this seems to be in their wheelhouse.

[bflynn]

What I'm trying to figure out is why I have the same values, but apparently fit so poorly here...

[jimmydeanno]

Core values aren't something that you look at your organization and say "what qualities do we possess" especially when creating them.  They are something that you hold up and say, this is what we want to be.  We want to be an organization that exhibits integrity, volunteer service, excellence, and respect.

Our core values were originally the same as the USAF: Integrity First, Service before Self, and Excellence in All We Do.  They closely resemble our current core values today.  However, you notice that Service before Self has been changed to Volunteer Service because it better embodies what we do, and the spirit that our volunteers bring to the organization.  We have also added respect, which not only speaks to how we should treat other CAP members, but those we interact with, information we obtain, etc.

If our organization didn't have those traits before, we should model our operations to focus on those traits, and ensure that our leadership embodies them.  So, what have we done to ensure that it isn't more than just lip-service?  There are core value education efforts, and ethics in leadership education efforts.  Every single one of our professional development courses has at least one lesson on ethics or the core values.  Squadron Leadership School, for example, has "Officership and the Public Trust."  National Staff College has a seminar that focuses on strategic implementation of our core values.  Commanders at all levels are entrusted to carry the flag of those values to their units, and ensure that those under their command abide by them.  Folks who do not live up to those values are "re-educated" or asked to find another place to volunteer.

Ideally, you would hope that each commander takes their role seriously, and hope even more that each officer that we appoint would understand the meaning of being a CAP officer - living up to their commitments and oaths in every aspect of their lives, but we know that isn't always the truth.  It isn't even the truth in "The Real Military," public offices, or corporations.

So, I would assume that when I joined unofficial discussion boards, like CAPTalk, that there would be a few members of the group that didn't quite act with our core values in mind.  Since I can't force them to change, I can only hope to model my behavior so that they might want to alter theirs.

Overall, though, I think that CAP has made great leaps in defining what they want their culture to be, and defining the ethical standard they want their members to uphold. 

[FW]

Values are taught and reinforced by everyday living; not just as a member of CAP.  Our dedication to volunteer, respect for our fellow members, integrity and, the pursuit of excellence in all we do seems to follow common sense practice.  However, when any two humans get together, three opinions develop.  One tidbit I learned; don't be quick to criticize others opinions.  Tolerance is a nice trait; even if we disagree.  CAPTalk is a great forum; especially for those who wish to remain anonymous. However, the anonymity is two edged.  I would offer that it is fine to express your opinion.  Just be careful how you criticize other's.

Just my $.02...

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Our core values were originally the same as the USAF: Integrity First, Service before Self, and Excellence in All We Do.  They closely resemble our current core values today.  However, you notice that Service before Self has been changed to Volunteer Service because it better embodies what we do, and the spirit that our volunteers bring to the organization.  We have also added respect, which not only speaks to how we should treat other CAP members, but those we interact with, information we obtain, etc.

The latter of which shows that the people who thought "respect" as a value didn't really understand the core values to begin with. Respect is part of integrity, but had CAP's membership and leadership really understood the values themselves, they wouldn't have set a subset of "integrity" aside as its own standalone value.

And had a general policy directive been in place to begin with, it's entirely possible that we'd all have understood that. I'm fully aware where our numbering scheme came from, and that's immaterial to the idea of setting down the 40,000-foot view of what things should be, then executing the details from there. The Air Force's new numbering scheme flows from the order in which the AFPDs are numbered, which makes perfect sense. Start with the broad strokes.