Coordination between IGs and Wing Staff on Subordinate Unit Inspections

[RiverAux]

To what extent does your Wing Inspector General consult with Wing staff members about the performance of their counterparts when the IG conducts a Subordinate Unit Inspection of a squadron? 

I've recently seen reports of recent SUIs for most squadrons in my wing and was quite surprised in the variation in grades for a program I am familiar with.  Based on performance most of these units should have received unsatisfactory grades in this program if you had asked the relevant wing staff officer. 

I was also surprised to see an lot of variation in whether the exact same violation of a clear requirement was not "graded" at all even though the violation was discussed in the narrative, given an Area of Concern, or given a Fnding.  The same violation resulted in all three options. 

Now, I realize that some of this is probably due to variation in the members assigned to the SUI team, but you would think that consultation with the relevant wing staff officer would be required so as to better standardize evaluations.   

Failure to proactively require some participation by the Wing staff in SUIs seems to leave out an incredibly important point of view on how each unit is performing. 

Any thoughts on this?

[Eclipse]

Zero coordination, but I don't see where any would matter.

SUIs are pretty objective, either you did a thing and can substantiate it or you can't.

I don't see where having a wing staffer involved would change the answer.

I was also surprised to see an lot of variation in whether the exact same violation of a clear requirement was not "graded" at all even though the violation was discussed in the narrative, given an Area of Concern, or given a Fnding.  The same violation resulted in all three options. 

This is an inspector or an IG who doesn't know how to do inspections. 

You can't have an AOC or finding (now discrepancy) in an area "not graded".  And the proper term for that is "not inspected".

If an area isn't inspected, it "isn't".

Failure to proactively require some participation by the Wing staff in SUIs seems to leave out an incredibly important point of view on how each unit is performing. 

The only point of view which is relevent is the 1-3 CCs in the chain.  Wing staff are administrative managers and have no say in
whether a unit is successful or not.  In their theoretical role as SME in a given area, they may be able to answer questions
or help shape an opinion, but whether I think a uit is successful really isn't relevent if the 3 CC's do, with the most important
one being the Wing CC.

The fact that SUIs can vary so widely between units in the same wing, or between wings is a major factor as to why
we need to move to yes/no inspections and leave out the subjectivity.

Anything beyond "pass/fail" is simply irrelevant and a waste of time.  "Outstanding" commanders get the same
pay as "marginal" CC's, best-practices are rarely published and even more rarely read by other CC's. 

[BillB]

What purpose would be served to have an IG talk to Wing Staff? In most cases Wing Staff has little idea of what happens on the Squadron level. As a former Wing PAO, I had no idea what local news releases a Squadron PAO made, or speaking engagements or any contact with their local media. All I as Wing PAO would see would be news releases to the Wing newspaper or to NHQ PA.
The same applies to many Wing Staff positions, there is little knowledge of the activities at Squadron level that would be helpful for SUI.

[JeffDG]

What purpose would be served to have an IG talk to Wing Staff? In most cases Wing Staff has little idea of what happens on the Squadron level. As a former Wing PAO, I had no idea what local news releases a Squadron PAO made, or speaking engagements or any contact with their local media. All I as Wing PAO would see would be news releases to the Wing newspaper or to NHQ PA.
The same applies to many Wing Staff positions, there is little knowledge of the activities at Squadron level that would be helpful for SUI.

But, there are reports that squadrons are supposed to submit to Wing, and som pre-coordination between the IG and the Wing Staff might get those things checked off long before the visit occurs.

Also, there are items that are written by the Wing Staff that could be directive to squadrons.  Communications Plans written at Wing are considered "Wing Policy" and directives contained therein can be inspected by the SUI team.

[Laplace]

As a Wing IG, I always try to get the Wing staff involved in the SUIs.  I haven't had much luck, but still try.   The few that came to one seemed to enjoy the experience.  It gave them a chance to visit a subordinate unit,  meet their unit counterpart and, if time permits, do some training.   I'm fine with them coming and only inspecting their area.

After the SUI, if there are significant deficiencies in an area, I will forward that to the appropriate Wing Staff member.  They may take action or may not, but I think that is my obligation.   Once a year, I will pass out to the Wing Staff a chart showing the frequent deficiencies in each area.  My hope would be for them to address via email or training during a Wing Conference or Training Academy.

Currently, we are in the final preparations for a C.I. in February.   I think a few Wing staffers wish they would have interacted more with their unit counterparts.... 

[Eclipse]

I think a few Wing staffers wish they would have interacted more with their unit counterparts....

I have to ask, how would that have helped or made a difference?

[Laplace]

I think a few Wing staffers wish they would have interacted more with their unit counterparts....

I have to ask, how would that have helped or made a difference?

This comment was relative to C.I prep.  Several have not kept up on reports, etc. that they should have been getting from the squadrons.  Difficult to scramble and gather now.  They never asked and squadrons never gave.   

When I was Wing LG, it was far easier to get compliance with the annual inventories or quick responses to my emails/telephone calls from other unit LGs or CCs that I had met or interacted with previously. 

[RiverAux]

Wing staff are administrative managers and have no say in whether a unit is successful or not.

No, but a major part of their job is making sure that things are being done right in the squadrons since they get graded on that in their own CIs.  (Yes, you can get a Finding on a CI based on something that squadrons (not the wing) are required to do, but didn't). 

If you ask a Wing Staff member in just about any position they are going to have an excellent idea about whether or not each squadron is carrying out the CAP program as it is intended to be done.  Now, I'm not saying that you would just take the Wing staff's word for it, but if an IG comes back with a report showing that the program area is successful while at the same time the Wing staff member knows that the person in the position hasn't done 25% of what they're supposed to do, then something is amiss. 

In most cases Wing Staff has little idea of what happens on the Squadron level.

Then that is a Wing staff member who isn't doing their job.  Now, I'll cut Wing staff a little slack on this in Wings with Groups, but I suspect that even then they know which squadrons aren't really doing the job. 

As a former Wing PAO, I had no idea what local news releases a Squadron PAO made, or speaking engagements or any contact with their local media.

It wasn't all that many years ago that squadrons were required to submit quarterly public affairs reports to Wing.  No longer required at the national level though Wings could still require it. 

As a Wing IG, I always try to get the Wing staff involved in the SUIs.

Now, I wasn't suggesting that Wing Staff actually go out on the inspection teams.  Since these are usually 2-3 person teams, there isn't any way that it would be feasible except for a few staff members.

I guess what I'm suggesting is that at a minimum draft versions of the SUI reports should be run by the Wing staff so that they can make sure things were done right.  For example, if the SUI report says that certain information was being sent to Wing and the Wing staff member knows that it wasn't received, then we have a problem somewhere. 

Whether or not there may be problems in the report, it just seems to make sense to me that SUI reports (whether draft or final) be circulated to Wing staff so that they know what was observed when someone from Wing checked into how things were being done at the squadron level.  If they IG report shows that half their squadrons are unsuccessful in their area, then the Wing staff guy knows that he has work to do to make sure that things are being done right out in the field. 

[RiverAux]

If an area isn't inspected, it "isn't".

Sideline -- current Wing Compliance inspections involve responding to all sorts of official questions about items not included in the CI guide.  Don't know if its happening in SUIs though. 

[Eclipse]

If an area isn't inspected, it "isn't".

Sideline -- current Wing Compliance inspections involve responding to all sorts of official questions about items not included in the CI guide.  Don't know if its happening in SUIs though.

It sure shouldn't be.

Any question asked to me by an inspector that isn't in the guide would / does get a "respectfully sir..." etc., etc.

We had a SAV last year and nothing came up that wasn't in the book, though our LRADO is very experienced.  I've had a couple of SUIs
where the inspectors wanted to try and become commanders on the spot and got the "respectfully sir..." response.

[Eclipse]

River, the CI's are just like the SUIs - mostly yes/no/show me.  At the wing level they are just as specific and check-box, as they are at the unit level.
They have nothing to do with unit performance, they are specific to the wing functions, respectively, and if specific units are deficient,
the wing staffer is not likely to get dinged for it.

For example, a Wing AEO who can show that he did the work and hassled units into sending their required reports, isn't going to get dinged
if 32 of 40 units sent their and 8 don't.  Maybe an AOC, but I'd guess even that was a stretch.

There's also the issue of groups, and in a wing with groups, the wing isn't supposed to be interacting directly with the unit CC's and staff unless asked.

Frankly, when you see the CI guides and consider all that isn't being asked, it's either shocking or disappointing, depending on your vector.
Which has been my complaint all along.  I've seen far too many units and staffers getting high marks but doing literally nothing but
checking the boxes, while ultra-engaged and active units get dinged for technicalities or nonsense that these inspections have lost
any credibility in my eyes.  And most units and wings treat the inspections like final exams, which literally defeats the purpose. 

Getting an outstanding because you have 12 pdfs that say "no report" is not likely the intention of the process.  And how can
you then go after someone who just got an outstanding on an inspection?  "You're doing a bad job, Brownie!"  "Really?  The USAF disagrees!"

Whether or not there may be problems in the report, it just seems to make sense to me that SUI reports (whether draft or final) be circulated to Wing staff so that they know what was observed when someone from Wing checked into how things were being done at the squadron level.  If they IG report shows that half their squadrons are unsuccessful in their area, then the Wing staff guy knows that he has work to do to make sure that things are being done right out in the field.

The time for this is in the response after the inspection.  If an inspector says "you didn't send the reports", all the CC has to do is show he did, and the
discrepancy is closed.  Next question.  If you really want to bring the process, which is already running at a snail's pace in many wings to a crawl,
start asking individual staffers their "opinions" about the inspection.  The average staffer will not have SUI training, and may well try to be CC's from the
back seat as well.

[RiverAux]

River, the CI's are just like the SUIs - mostly yes/no/show me.  At the wing level they are just as specific and check-box, as they are at the unit level.

For the most part, this is correct, but the current CI guide seems to have at least one subjective question in each area.  A few examples that leave it up to the inspector on whether or not things are being done as they should:
Does the DAE support and promote AE programs, including programs with hands-on activities?
Describe how the wing assists subordinate units with making reasonable accommodations for cadets who have special
educational or physical needs.
How do you ensure Chaplain Corps personnel are prepared to respond to disaster or other community contingencies?
Has the Finance Committee maintained an adequate system of internal accounting controls over all funds in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles?
Provide documentation of the wing's success in generating local, state and/or national publicity; include examples of social media platforms.

For example, a Wing AEO who can show that he did the work and hassled units into sending their required reports, isn't going to get dinged
if 32 of 40 units sent their and 8 don't.  Maybe an AOC, but I'd guess even that was a stretc

Absolutely wrong.  I've seen two CI reports from other Wings done this year in which Findings were given for this sort of thing. 

There's also the issue of groups, and in a wing with groups, the wing isn't supposed to be interacting directly with the unit CC's and staff unless asked.

True, to a great degree, which is why I mentioned it.  However, having groups doesn't absolve a wing staff member for all responsibility just as having them doesn't absolve the wing commander. 

Frankly, when you see the CI guides and consider all that isn't being asked, it's either shocking or disappointing, depending on your vector.
Which has been my complaint all along.  I've seen far too many units and staffers getting high marks but doing literally nothing but
checking the boxes, while ultra-engaged and active units get dinged for technicalities or nonsense that these inspections have lost
any credibility in my eyes.  And most units and wings treat the inspections like final exams, which literally defeats the purpose. 

I think we agree about this.  And its one reason that I think the appropriate staff member should be somehow involved in the SUI process so as to get a dose of actual reality about the effectiveness of the program at the squadron level. 

The average staffer will not have SUI training,

If you're talking about the IG training to conduct SUIs, you're correct.  But, the wing staffer will, or eventually will have, the experience of preparing for and going through a CI. 

If you really want to bring the process, which is already running at a snail's pace in many wings to a crawl,
start asking individual staffers their "opinions" about the inspection.

Not really.  If the staffer doesn't have any comment, then nothing is slowed down.  If they do have comment and think that the inspectors got something seriously wrong then I think it is well worth everyone's time to really discuss what is going on down in that unit.