Publications rewrite

[JeffDG]

You guys do realize that the entire process is laid out in considerable detail, right?

5.2. 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.

[Garibaldi]

that needs to be re-written and condensed too. 

[ZigZag911]

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.

[SARDOC]

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

[Ed Bos]

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.

[JeffDG]

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."

[PHall]

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.

[THRAWN]

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...

[Holding Pattern]

Does this include CAPPs as well as CAPRs?

[AlphaSigOU]

Does this include CAPPs as well as CAPRs?

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't already included.

[JeffDG]

Does this include CAPPs as well as CAPRs?

If you read the documents, your question is quite clearly covered.

[Holding Pattern]

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.

[PHall]

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!

[TheSkyHornet]

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!

*Walks out of the classroom to go smoke in the faculty parking lot*

[SARDOC]

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.

[JeffDG]

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. 

[SARDOC]

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.