Orders VS Regulations

[Invalid Name]

This is a hypothetical situation:
The Squadron CC has given orders that are entirely against regulations.  This was pointed out to him several times, he makes it clear that he does not care.  Now, there is proper action to be taken, but that takes time and cannot be done in an on-the-spot situation.  If the Squadron CC were to give an order like that, what should the members of the squadron do (on-the-spot, not long-term) if the commands are not unsafe or immoral but are completely ridiculous and against regulations?  Obey them, and break regulations?  Or disobey the commander, in order to obey regulations?  What do the regulations suggest?

[MSG Mac]

This is a hypothetical situation:
The Squadron CC has given orders that are entirely against regulations.  This was pointed out to him several times, he makes it clear that he does not care.  Now, there is proper action to be taken, but that takes time and cannot be done in an on-the-spot situation.  If the Squadron CC were to give an order like that, what should the members of the squadron do (on-the-spot, not long-term) if the commands are not unsafe or immoral but are completely ridiculous and against regulations?  Obey them, and break regulations?  Or disobey the commander, in order to obey regulations?  What do the regulations suggest?

Regulation are by definition the rules under which CAP operates. If a member knowingly follows an order which is against regulations he/she is just as culpable as the one giving the order.  Saying I was following orders is not a viable defense.

[LSThiker]

This is a hypothetical situation:
The Squadron CC has given orders that are entirely against regulations.  This was pointed out to him several times, he makes it clear that he does not care.  Now, there is proper action to be taken, but that takes time and cannot be done in an on-the-spot situation.  If the Squadron CC were to give an order like that, what should the members of the squadron do (on-the-spot, not long-term) if the commands are not unsafe or immoral but are completely ridiculous and against regulations?  Obey them, and break regulations?  Or disobey the commander, in order to obey regulations?  What do the regulations suggest?

Part of the answer is, it depends.  You said the orders were not unsafe or immoral.  Obviously, if they were unsafe or immoral, you would not follow them.  However, whether to follow the orders or not is subjective.  Depending on the severity of the orders, it may be better to address the situation in private but carrying them out until such time is possible.  However, at other times, it may be best to immediately ask the commander for a private conversation.  It other times, it may be best to immediately oppose those orders. 

For example, if the commander states that he wants all NCOs to wear rank on their BDU hats.  Okay, is this order really something drastic that needs to be addressed immediately?  No.  Follow the order and then address it with the commander as opportunity allows.   

If the commander states that he wants all GTMs to remove their orange vests in the field.  Okay, this could be a safety issue but probably is not an immediate safety issue.  However, pull the commander aside and address the issue while in the field.  If it becomes an immediate safety problem, then directly violate those orders and put them back on.

Be advised that not obeying orders can draw consequences even if those orders are improper. 

Edit--something got garbled in my original message.

[PA Guy]

The only thing I would add to LST's post is if you go up against your sqdn commander be very, very sure you have your ducks in a row.

[Holding Pattern]

In a business environment, I would say send an email to my boss saying:

"I'd like for you to clarify your position on your directive of X as it pertains to our policies outlined in doc Y that state not to do X on page 47. Can we set some time aside to discuss this?"

After discussion that still breaks the rules (who knows, seeing the beginning of a paper trail being created sometimes jars people into compliance), reply all to the email so you and boss get a copy:

"Just to recap, your justifications for directive X are Z, but it seems to me that this still places us out of compliance with policy doc Y." Can you email me any supplemental documentation available on this issue supporting the continued use of directive X?"

In a volunteer quasi-military structure, this approach may be less than ideal.

I'm minded of a Heinlein book where 2 cadets are discussing what appear to be stupid orders, and one cadet comments to the other cadet that if he really thinks the orders are against regulations, he can simply request the orders in writing. This... doesn't work especially well for that cadet.

But the circumstances in the sci-fi book are hopefully not analogous to your situation.

Now I'm going to have to reread all my Heinlein books to remember which YA book that was and see if I can get a local bookstore to donate 30 copies to my squadron... hmm...

[arajca]

Starship Troopers. Excellent book. It's actually the lead character in his 3rd Lt stage talking to a 2d Lt. It entails doing a complete inventory of property before signing for it.

[lordmonar]

This is a hypothetical situation:
The Squadron CC has given orders that are entirely against regulations.  This was pointed out to him several times, he makes it clear that he does not care.  Now, there is proper action to be taken, but that takes time and cannot be done in an on-the-spot situation.  If the Squadron CC were to give an order like that, what should the members of the squadron do (on-the-spot, not long-term) if the commands are not unsafe or immoral but are completely ridiculous and against regulations?  Obey them, and break regulations?  Or disobey the commander, in order to obey regulations?  What do the regulations suggest?

Regulation are by definition the rules under which CAP operates. If a member knowingly follows an order which is against regulations he/she is just as culpable as the one giving the order.  Saying I was following orders is not a viable defense.

Sorry....not true.

We follow all LEGAL orders.  Orders against regulations are that are not otherwise illegal you must follow.

So you can in fact be ordered to violate a regulation.   It is your due diligence to point out the transgression and it is your duty maybe to report said trangression up the chain of command.....but you must follow them. 

Now....let's say you want to not follow the order.

In a military context you could be tried for disobeaying a direct order.

Now the officer who ordered you to disregard a regulation may or may not be up on charges as well....but the out come of that has no bearing on your case.

[lordmonar]

Starship Troopers. Excellent book. It's actually the lead character in his 3rd Lt stage talking to a 2d Lt. It entails doing a complete inventory of property before signing for it.

I think it was Space Cadet.

[Alaric]

Starship Troopers. Excellent book. It's actually the lead character in his 3rd Lt stage talking to a 2d Lt. It entails doing a complete inventory of property before signing for it.

I think it was Space Cadet.

You are correct lordmonar it was space cadet

[almostspaatz]

This is a hypothetical situation:
The Squadron CC has given orders that are entirely against regulations.  This was pointed out to him several times, he makes it clear that he does not care.  Now, there is proper action to be taken, but that takes time and cannot be done in an on-the-spot situation.  If the Squadron CC were to give an order like that, what should the members of the squadron do (on-the-spot, not long-term) if the commands are not unsafe or immoral but are completely ridiculous and against regulations?  Obey them, and break regulations?  Or disobey the commander, in order to obey regulations?  What do the regulations suggest?

Regulation are by definition the rules under which CAP operates. If a member knowingly follows an order which is against regulations he/she is just as culpable as the one giving the order.  Saying I was following orders is not a viable defense.

Sorry....not true.

We follow all LEGAL orders.  Orders against regulations are that are not otherwise illegal you must follow.

So you can in fact be ordered to violate a regulation.   It is your due diligence to point out the transgression and it is your duty maybe to report said trangression up the chain of command.....but you must follow them. 

Now....let's say you want to not follow the order.

In a military context you could be tried for disobeaying a direct order.

Now the officer who ordered you to disregard a regulation may or may not be up on charges as well....but the out come of that has no bearing on your case.

I'm not entirely sure how this relates but...for a leadership test I was just reading about the "Nuremburg Defense"

The only instance I can think of where you would be right to disobey an order is in situation where it would be immoral or unlawful to follow the order.

[LSThiker]

I'm not entirely sure how this relates but...for a leadership test I was just reading about the "Nuremburg Defense"

The only instance I can think of where you would be right to disobey an order is in situation where it would be immoral or unlawful to follow the order.

The UCMJ states:

A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.

From my understanding a more specific definition of lawful orders has been resolved more from case law than actual definition.  Therefore, you really cannot get any more specific via text without a person that is more well versed on military law.  Perhaps Ned would like to clarify the above statement.

[lordmonar]

Yep.  Orders out weigh regs.  Always have and always will.  Unless they are unlawful. 

[Holding Pattern]

Yup, it was Space Cadet. Pie with a fork.

[Storm Chaser]

We follow all LEGAL orders.  Orders against regulations are that are not otherwise illegal you must follow.

So you can in fact be ordered to violate a regulation.   It is your due diligence to point out the transgression and it is your duty maybe to report said trangression up the chain of command.....but you must follow them. 

Now....let's say you want to not follow the order.

In a military context you could be tried for disobeaying a direct order.

Now the officer who ordered you to disregard a regulation may or may not be up on charges as well....but the out come of that has no bearing on your case.

In the military, a commissioned officer's authority is derived from the President by virtue of their commission. This is codified by statute. In CAP, authority is derived by regulation. By your logic, I could ignore the regulation that gives that authority. Furthermore, regulations are issued by order of the two-star National Commander. Are you saying that the orders of a unit commander take precedence over the orders of the National Commander?

Let's use common sense. CAP is not the military. We're not subject to the UCMJ. Authority in CAP has its limitations. In the military, a commander can order you to show up to work and you have to do it. In CAP, a commander cannot force you to attend a meeting. That's not to say that CAP commanders don't have any authority because they do. But unlike military authority, authority in CAP is not backed up by law nor can it be enforced by force.

Under most circumstances, no one in CAP should be giving orders that go against regulations. There are exceptions, of course. For example, an order that goes against regulations in response to an immediate safety hazard is a valid order and should be followed. But if someone gives you an order you don't feel comfortable following, then you don't follow it. Plain and simple. Can there be consequences for not following an order? Sure. But those potential consequences are limited by regulation, the order itself and the reason it was given. There are several recourses to address unfair treatment or retaliation for not following an order that is deemed improper (it doesn't have to be illegal).

[lordmonar]

In the military, a commissioned officer's authority is derived from the President by virtue of their commission. This is codified by statute. In CAP, authority is derived by regulation. By your logic, I could ignore the regulation that gives that authority. Furthermore, regulations are issued by order of the two-star National Commander. Are you saying that the orders of a unit commander take precedence over the orders of the National Commander?

I am saying that we as members are duty bound to follow the LAWFUL orders of those appointed over us.    Just like in the military.   LAWFUL.   Is key here.  A regulation in and of itself is not a law....ergo a order that tells you to violate a regulation can be a LAWFUL order.  We are duty bound to follow it.  The person issuing said order may be liable to higher authority for ordering his/her personnel to ignore the regulation but that is all.

Let's use common sense. CAP is not the military. We're not subject to the UCMJ. Authority in CAP has its limitations. In the military, a commander can order you to show up to work and you have to do it. In CAP, a commander cannot force you to attend a meeting.

Not true.   A commander most certainly can order someone to be some where at a specific time.  And if that person fails to follow that order he can suffer the consequences.   The difference between CAP and the military are the limits of the consequences.  In the real military if I were to "fail to go" I could go to jail, lose a stripe, pay a find, get kicked out of the military".   In CAP....I could be demoted, get suspended or get 2b'ed. 

That's not to say that CAP commanders don't have any authority because they do. But unlike military authority, authority in CAP is not backed up by law nor can it be enforced by force.

Under most circumstances, no one in CAP should be giving orders that go against regulations. There are exceptions, of course. For example, an order that goes against regulations in response to an immediate safety hazard is a valid order and should be followed. But if someone gives you an order you don't feel comfortable following, then you don't follow it. Plain and simple. Can there be consequences for not following an order? Sure. But those potential consequences are limited by regulation, the order itself and the reason it was given. There are several recourses to address unfair treatment or retaliation for not following an order that is deemed improper (it doesn't have to be illegal).

Yes....so basically you are in fact agreeing with what I said.   A leader can order you to go against regulations......and you have the due diligence to speak up and report it if you think you need to.   You can go so far as say "nope sir....not gonna due it." In which case there may or may not be consequences to you for not following the orders.

[Storm Chaser]

In the military, a commissioned officer's authority is derived from the President by virtue of their commission. This is codified by statute. In CAP, authority is derived by regulation. By your logic, I could ignore the regulation that gives that authority. Furthermore, regulations are issued by order of the two-star National Commander. Are you saying that the orders of a unit commander take precedence over the orders of the National Commander?

I am saying that we as members are duty bound to follow the LAWFUL orders of those appointed over us.    Just like in the military.   LAWFUL.   Is key here.  A regulation in and of itself is not a law....ergo a order that tells you to violate a regulation can be a LAWFUL order.  We are duty bound to follow it.  The person issuing said order may be liable to higher authority for ordering his/her personnel to ignore the regulation but that is all.

Since CAP commanders and officers don't have authority established by law, how did you conclude that as long as the order is legal, it must be followed? Opinions don't count, so please cite.

Let's use common sense. CAP is not the military. We're not subject to the UCMJ. Authority in CAP has its limitations. In the military, a commander can order you to show up to work and you have to do it. In CAP, a commander cannot force you to attend a meeting.

Not true.   A commander most certainly can order someone to be some where at a specific time.  And if that person fails to follow that order he can suffer the consequences.   The difference between CAP and the military are the limits of the consequences.  In the real military if I were to "fail to go" I could go to jail, lose a stripe, pay a find, get kicked out of the military".   In CAP....I could be demoted, get suspended or get 2b'ed.

Funny, you've argued this point with Eclipse multiple times when he insisted in terminating or transferring to Patron status those who were inactive.

A member's membership can't be terminated just for missing a meeting, even if their commander ordered them to attend. Again, please cite.

That's not to say that CAP commanders don't have any authority because they do. But unlike military authority, authority in CAP is not backed up by law nor can it be enforced by force.

Under most circumstances, no one in CAP should be giving orders that go against regulations. There are exceptions, of course. For example, an order that goes against regulations in response to an immediate safety hazard is a valid order and should be followed. But if someone gives you an order you don't feel comfortable following, then you don't follow it. Plain and simple. Can there be consequences for not following an order? Sure. But those potential consequences are limited by regulation, the order itself and the reason it was given. There are several recourses to address unfair treatment or retaliation for not following an order that is deemed improper (it doesn't have to be illegal).

Yes....so basically you are in fact agreeing with what I said.   A leader can order you to go against regulations......and you have the due diligence to speak up and report it if you think you need to.   You can go so far as say "nope sir....not gonna due it." In which case there may or may not be consequences to you for not following the orders.

I provided a context. You provided generalizations. Please read my post again. The point I was trying to make was that you can't get in trouble for not following an order that, while legal (CAP members don't have the authority to issue lawful orders since their authority is not set by law), may be improper.

You've said similar things in the past. If you do a search of your previous posts, you'll see you're contradicting yourself.

[lordmonar]

It does not have anything to do with if our authority come from laws or are just internal rules or just custom.

CAPR 35-3 gives the commander the authority to 2b personnel.

b. Termination for Cause. Senior members whose conduct, behavior or effectiveness fail to meet the standards of CAP as set forth in paragraph 1 of this regulation shall have their membership terminated for cause. Termination action may be justified by the seriousness of a single incident or by repeated minor incidents, none of which alone would justify termination action. Termination for cause is defined as follows:
(1) Conduct involving moral turpitude.
(2) Conduct unbecoming a member of CAP.
(3) Financial irresponsibility.
(4) Insanity, habitual drunkenness, sexual perversion or illiteracy.
(5) Habitual failure to perform duty.
(6) Making a false statement to or concerning CAP.
(7) Serious or willful violations of CAP regulations or directives.
(8) Substandard performance of duty over an extended period of time.
(9) Failure to obey rules, regulations and orders of higher authority.
(10) Insubordination.
(11) Any other conduct, action or incident which violates the policy set forth in paragraph 1 of this regulation, provided the reason for termination is clearly stated in the letter of notification.

Now since number 7....has the term "serious or willful" it implies that there are times when you can violate CAP regulations and directives.  But number 9....simply says failure to obey rules, regulations and order of higher authority....which implies that all of those are either equal or have to be considered in context.

As for my point about ordering someone...and what I argued with Eclipse...I never....never....never said that we could not order someone to be somewhere.....I simply said that it was stupid in our organisation to play those transfer games with our members. 

As for the cite...CAP 35-3 is the source of our real authority as commanders.   

Yes you provide a context and provide a generalization because I'm talking about generally speaking.

Generally speaking a commander should never order a person to violate regulations....but sometimes he can.
Generally speaking a member should follow the orders of those appointed over him....but sometimes he shouldn't.

The OP was asking a general hypothetical non-specific question about a commander ordering his people to violate a regulation.

My answer is....generally speaking he needs to follow the order if it does not violate a law.   Because generally speaking the authority of a commander out weights the authority of a regulation.

Is that spelled out anywhere?    Not in CAP.....it is in the military...and it is general practice in the business world.

[EMT-83]

How about you look him in the eye and say, "I'm sorry sir, that is against regulations. Will there be anything else?"

[Al Sayre]

Generally, regulations apply to everyone.  However, regulations are not the final word for those with command authority.  As a commander, you have the ability to interpret the regulations as they apply to any given situation and can issue an order that violates a regulation if there is a good reason for doing so (usually safety). 

For example:  (Hypothetically) An accident occurs and a CAP van with a squadron commander and a couple of cadets stop to help.  While the commander is rendering first aid he/she realizes that the CAP Van is blocking easy access for emergency vehicles and tells a 17 yr old cadet to drive the van out of the way.  Regulations say Cadets can't drive vans.  So the order violates regulations, but it would be a lawful order assuming the cadet has a drivers license and there is a good reason for issuing it.

[Tim Day]

Interesting conversation, but mostly theoretical. When I renewed my membership I stated:

I voluntarily subscribe to the objectives and purposes of the Civil Air Patrol and agree to be guided by CAP Core Values, Ethics Policies, Constitution & Bylaws, Regulations and all applicable Federal, State, and Local Laws.

and after that:

I agree to abide by the decisions of those in authority of the Civil Air Patrol.

Interestingly there's nothing in the oath about obeying the orders of officers appointed over me like there is in the active duty enlisted oath of office. In CAP, I obey orders because the regulations say I should.

To me, the earlier paragraph trumps the later paragraph, and the National CC who signed the regulation has more authority than the Squadron CC who attempted to countermand it, therefore I abide by the decision of the higher authority.

My personal practice would be to obey the orders of my Squadron CC unless I believe it directly violates a regulation in which case I'd let him know, privately if possible. "Sir, if I remember correctly I think that would directly contradict such-and-such, can you let me verify and get back to you?" works in 99.99% of CAP situations. I'd be interested to see if a membership board would uphold a 2B for such a response, if it ever made it that far. If you were to do that repeatedly, and were wrong every time, I'd say your membership should be in jeopardy.

If there's an emergency (the other .01%, maybe) I'll follow the direction of whoever on scene has the best chance of getting everyone out alive and sort it all out later.