Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 27, 2019, 12:09:22 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Delinquent Interim Change Letters
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 Send this topic Print
Author Topic: Delinquent Interim Change Letters  (Read 12030 times)
Major Lord
Suspended

Posts: 1,817

« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2009, 06:35:12 PM »

Actually, National HQ would get a big hit on an IG inspection for not either incorporating the change in the reg or for not withdrawing the ICL.

Doesn't an ICL that is stale dated become automatically moot? The fact that one expires without entering regulations shows that it did not meet the standards for relevance, and can now be safely ignored. The flag patch is a good example, considerng the AF's pronouncements on army style flags, its unlikely that it would pass big Blues' scrutiny if they tried to give it the "force of law" by making it a real regulation. I suppose the counter-argument is that the implied will of the commander constitutes a de facto order, but the express will of the commander is the regulation that causes the ICL to become void. Crikey!

Major Lord
Report to moderator   Logged
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."
BillB
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,987

« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2009, 06:47:58 PM »

Back in the days of paper regulations, changes to a reg usually was no more than a one page change to be inserted in the particular reg. Charges were made by the NEC by conference call, or the change came from CAP-USAF. Now it appears, conference calls are no longer used to get approval for a reg change. (or does the change require action by the National Board, I haven't looked by bylaws lately.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,662

« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2009, 07:06:09 PM »

Actually, the fact that they become moot is a fallacy some members labor under - the same one that allows some members to believe Board and NEC actions have to run through a printer or email before they are "legal".

The practical reality is that all of these are directives from higher HQ in our direct chain of command - so we should comply as appropriate, and leave the legalistic arguments about directives expiring for the CAP Supreme Court (oh, yeah, I forgot, we don't have one of those).

If you feel so put upon by this situation, file a formal IG complaint and enjoy the fun that ensues. Assuming it got to anyone's real attention, a directive based on an expired ICL would simply see that ICL reissued immediately and the complaint tossed with the member told to be on his way.

This is akin to people who believe we aren't bound to pay taxes - it amounts to nothing but angst for people with too much time on their hands.

Its also interesting that generally people only challenge the regs they don't like, leaving the ones they agree with quietly alone.

Now, with the above said, do I understand why NHQ can't just update the regs and move on?  No.  But truth be told, the most basic components of the uniform haven't changed much in a decade, and even the more interesting ones not much in several years.  Those of us who choose to be informed would still know the minutia of nameplates, and those who can't be bothered to read 39-1 would still be wearing their berets with service dress and bloused pants.

If you want to relieve the rank and file from staying current on what some refer to as the "mess", fine, but the commander's do not have this luxury, its always their responsibility to be current on the regs and ICLs, no matter where they are published.

Too much hassle?  Get a staffer to do it or step aside. 

I've said it before, people know what they want to know and ignore the rest.  A lot of those who claim its too hard to keep up with uniform regs would be able to tell you who batted clean-up for the '39 Red Sox, the number of turns on a factory set idle screw from a 69 Skylark QuadraJet, or how long the wire needs to be for an HF radio from memory.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2009, 08:56:56 PM by MIKE » Report to moderator   Logged


swamprat86
Seasoned Member

Posts: 217

« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2009, 07:36:39 PM »

This isn't as much an issue of knowing and following the regs for our members as much as why did a system that worked well in the time before the internet is now so difficult to do.

Commanders should know all the regs, ICLs, etc., but the system was more "user-friendly" in the past but now we need a knowledge base to help direct the general membership where specific rules are kept (regs, ICL, manuals, etc).

The ICL is a tool and it has not been used properly and has over-complicated the system.  Does it work, sorta, but I can use a drill as hammer too but eventually I am going to break the drill.

We are not talking about creating a new process to try and fix this, we are talking about using the existing process as it should be used which should fix the problem.

BTW, using the logic that commanders should know the regs, National should already know this.   ;)
Report to moderator   Logged
Major Lord
Suspended

Posts: 1,817

« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2009, 07:49:24 PM »

Eclipse,

I thought I would take a look in regulations to see if your position that ICLs do not become Moot is a fallacy. Here is what I found for the record:

Interim Change Letters (ICL). Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies. ICLs may be issued by any level of command unless specifically limited or prohibited by the regulation or manual governing that subject matter. Issuance of policies by ICL is a temporary measure.
a. ICLs outlining immediate policies to be followed for a limited time will be issued with a stated expiration date. Such expiration dates shall not be more than 180 days from the date the letter was issued.
b. ICLs outlining immediate policies that are intended to become permanent shall be incorporated into an appropriate publication within 90 days of the date the letter was issued.
5. Changes may only be published by the same unit that published the basic publication. A change will only be published using the page-insert method. Write-in changes are NOT AUTHORIZED.

I don't see anything in this that specifies that ICLs are intended to keep the emergency policies alive beyond their authorized time limit, in fact, I don't see how you can draw an opposite conclusion.
In the event that there is a conflict between regulations and an expired ICL, I don't see how you could  justify violating the regulation.

On the other hand, there is no regulation that I am aware of that requires, for instance, the installation of all the seats in 15 PAX vans, and while it would be prudent not to do so ( for fear of some bedwetter complaining about the possibiltiy of too many passengers being carried) If the mission requires all the seats, you should carry out the mission according to actual, written regulations, and strive not to abuse the prohibition against carrying too many passengers. ( In California, its illegal anyway unless you have a class B license)

There is no need to file an IG complaint against the NB to force their hand, compelling them to change an ICL to an actual regulation. The Board is taking action by allowing ICL's to expire, a perfectly legitimate command function. If the Board intends the policy to become permanent, then by not taking affirmative steps to rectify the situation ( by issuing an update or crafting a regulation) we must infer that their intent was to void the policy. (For those of you still waging war upon the Japanese and Germans, please take note)

Major Lord
« Last Edit: June 25, 2009, 08:59:53 PM by MIKE » Report to moderator   Logged
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."
Cecil DP
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,208

« Reply #25 on: June 25, 2009, 10:14:17 PM »

I've said it before, people know what they want to know and ignore the rest.  A lot of those who claim its too hard to keep up with uniform regs would be able to tell you who batted clean-up for the '39 Red Sox, .

Jimmy FoXX
Report to moderator   Logged
Michael P. McEleney
LtCol CAP
MSG  USA Retired
GRW#436 Feb 85
davedove
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 964
Unit: MER-MD-003

« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2009, 02:04:07 PM »

...
b. ICLs outlining immediate policies that are intended to become permanent shall be incorporated into an appropriate publication within 90 days of the date the letter was issued.
...


I think the problem is with the ICL's policies intended to become permanent.  Temporary policies with an expiration date are pretty clear.

For policies intended to be permanent, the changes are supposed to be incorporated into a new reg within 90 days.  But what you have shown here really doesn't address what happens if this doesn't occur.  These policies by their nature are intended to be permanent and thus don't have an expiration date.
Report to moderator   Logged
David W. Dove, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander for Seniors
Personnel/PD/Asst. Testing Officer
Ground Team Leader
Frederick Composite Squadron
MER-MD-003
openmind
Recruit

Posts: 24

« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2009, 06:57:05 PM »

...
b. ICLs outlining immediate policies that are intended to become permanent shall be incorporated into an appropriate publication within 90 days of the date the letter was issued.
...


I think the problem is with the ICL's policies intended to become permanent.  Temporary policies with an expiration date are pretty clear.

For policies intended to be permanent, the changes are supposed to be incorporated into a new reg within 90 days.  But what you have shown here really doesn't address what happens if this doesn't occur.  These policies by their nature are intended to be permanent and thus don't have an expiration date.

The lawyers can tear into this all day, but in re-reading the section listed, considering what you said here, it occurs to me that we have two (2) possible interpretations:

A.  Since ICLs are a 'temporary measure' and permanent policy changes must be made into a regulation within 90 days, we can INFER that an ICL, even one intended to effect a permanent policy change, becomes MOOT after those 90 days, whether the regulation was re-written or not.

B.  Since the regulation does not specifically state that the ICL becomes MOOT, it remains in effect, and someone should get dinged for not updating the written regulations.  Since this position requires no INFERRAL, as the A option, I will choose this reading as the more direct outcome of the language.

It is entirely possible that the drafters intended to write a passage with the effect of Option A, but ended up with Option B by failing to include a simple sentence about this situation.  Typical in rules and regulations.

Personally, I look at the 90 days issue like anything else with a deadline:  Just because it has passed doesn't mean that all bets are off.  For example, some States require, by statute law, that certain permits be either granted or denied within 90 days of application.  With budgets tight, those permits are taking 120-150 days to process.  The Courts take a dim view of the argument that "because the .gov failed in its duty to perform within 90 days, I should be able to do what the permit would allow, even though I haven't received it."

In this case, I will choose to follow the delinquent ICLs until some further guidance is given from NHQ Legal to say that they really do become Moot.  Heck, a simple note on the Knowledgebase that 'Permanent ICLs (do / do not) remain in effect permanently unless retracted/overturned" would clear the whole thing up.

Fun.

openmind
Report to moderator   Logged
BrandonKea
Seasoned Member

Posts: 427

« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2009, 03:43:48 AM »

Is it possible everyone's reading a little too into this?
Report to moderator   Logged
Brandon Kea, Capt, CAP
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,471

« Reply #29 on: July 02, 2009, 03:54:20 AM »

Is it possible everyone's reading a little too into this?

If a Region/Wing/Group/Squadron issued an ICL and did not incorperate it into the effected reg within the 90 day time limit they would take a pretty big hit on a SUI.

So why should National be any different? They're governed by the same regs, supposedly...
Report to moderator   Logged
Pumbaa
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 729

« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2009, 09:42:35 AM »

Quote
So why should National be any different? They're governed by the same regs, supposedly...

Do as I say... NOT as I do....

Nuff said???
Report to moderator   Logged
BillB
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,987

« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2009, 12:05:42 PM »

One thing people seem to be missing. Who authorizes regulation changes? The National CC can't and the National Board only meets twice a year. Or is it the NEC that can authorize a reg change, which does meet four time a year?
Report to moderator   Logged
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,187

« Reply #32 on: July 02, 2009, 12:52:44 PM »

Regulations may be changed by the BoG, National/CC (emergancies only), NEC or NB.  The NB or NEC may be called to session at any time when 14 day notice is given.  The BoG may meet at anytime with "proper notice".
Report to moderator   Logged
sarflyer
Forum Regular

Posts: 179
Unit: NER-MA-001

« Reply #33 on: July 02, 2009, 06:39:44 PM »

General Courter was just in our ICSS class here at NESA and ICL's were brought up.  She explained that because of staff reductions it has been more difficult to get these done but that she has begun pressuring the correct people to work on them.

She said she carries around a list of all the ICL's so that she can stay on top of the subject.

FYI
Report to moderator   Logged
Lt. Col. Paul F. Rowen, CAP
MAWG Director of Information Technology
NESA Webmaster
paul.rowen@mawg.cap.gov
swamprat86
Seasoned Member

Posts: 217

« Reply #34 on: July 02, 2009, 06:44:19 PM »

With all the members in CAP and the electronic access to the ICLs, regs, and NB minutes, we should be able to update manuals within the same timeframe we did before the internet.  As far as NHQ staffing, National can always sent out a request for members to volunteer to help with the updates.

I did mention a possible fix for the staffing issue.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2009, 07:36:25 PM by MIKE » Report to moderator   Logged
badger bob
Forum Regular

Posts: 153
Unit: GLR-WI-001

« Reply #35 on: July 04, 2009, 03:14:55 PM »

Having worked on a upcoming regulation, changing a regulation is a little more then typing something up at midnight while consuming a gallon of coffee and blasting it out over the internet.

Replacing 67-1 with an updated regulation also revises or replaces either totally or partially CAPR 67-4; CAPR 77-1; CAPR 87-1; and CAPR 100-2.

The revision also incorporates a significant change in two asset databases that CAP has. The data bases have to be tested to make sure the database will enable the requirements of the regulation.


Because the revision affects CAP assets; the revisions have to be reviewed and approved by the CAP financial staff and CAP-USAF staff. Legal has to approve changes that comply with US laws complying with the DOD grants by which we recieve funding for various assets.

There are some policy changes regarding property that are subject to review and input by CAP Command, IG staff, financial staff, the BOG, NEC, The National Board and CAP-USAF. Changes from any of the above still require coordination with the other bodies.

Day to day oversight of CAP assets is provided by the CAP-USAF  Logisitcs Officer with support from 8 CAP-USAF Liason Region Logistics Officers.As a part of that oversight,they also review the proposed changes
Report to moderator   Logged
Chris Klein
cklein<at>cap.gov
The Supply Guy
IC2
National Volunteer Logistics Officer- Retired
WI-IGA
Wilson Award# 3320
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #36 on: July 04, 2009, 03:21:45 PM »

I don't think anyone would argue that some of the regulations are extremely complex and require more work than just changing a few words in a document.  However, that is the exception rather than the rule. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Hawk200
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,632

« Reply #37 on: July 05, 2009, 06:46:32 PM »

I don't think anyone would argue that some of the regulations are extremely complex and require more work than just changing a few words in a document.  However, that is the exception rather than the rule.

Agreed. I think things would also be far less complex if each reg stood alone on a single subject, and not interlinked or overlapping such as we have with the 39-1 and 39-3 issue. (Not trying to steer this into a discussion on uniforms, that's just the example that comes to mind.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Larry Mangum
Global Moderator

Posts: 682

« Reply #38 on: July 06, 2009, 04:10:07 PM »

During MG Courtiers visit to the ICSS classroom it was pointed out to her that when national performs a CI on a wing, the wing being inspected is held accountable for not having current MOU's or supplements, yet national is not being held accountable for converting ICL's into regulations and this gives the appearance of a double standard.

She thought that was an interesting point and took notes on it.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 05:24:29 PM by Who_knows? » Report to moderator   Logged
Larry Mangum, Lt Col CAP
SWR-LA-966
cnitas
Seasoned Member

Posts: 425

« Reply #39 on: July 06, 2009, 05:16:48 PM »

Obviously, the solution is to remove those pesky items from the Wing SUI lists.

Report to moderator   Logged
Mark A. Piersall, Lt Col, CAP
Frederick Composite Squadron
MER-MD-003
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Delinquent Interim Change Letters
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.075 seconds with 26 queries.
click here to email me