Acquisition Cards and Lawful Orders

[Gunner98]

MJP,

If the items (i.e, civilian clothing) are government business-related purchases then I am not sure what the issue is.

"So what happens if Cpl A is a stickler for the rules and puts his/her foot down?" 

Hal Tar:  Do we really need to be specific about this, if so here goes...

In normal cases not involving the QM, nothing because the Supply Tech has delegated spending authority.  When the Sup Tech's boss (QM) orders him to do it and he/she refuses, then admin or disciplinary action could result. Upon further investigation the legality of the order would be discovered.  If the CO, felt the QM was wrong then the same would apply and the Sup Tech would get a pat on the back.  In most cases a Sup Tech would have a Sr Sup Tech (in the unit or on Base) to refer to.  I do not see the urgency in the example given, so if I was the Sup Tech I would drag my heels and talk to the appropriate superiors to determine how deep the shit is that I am about to step in - by buying or refusing to buy the goods.

If the Sup Tech does not have the balls and smarts to take the time to protect themselves (or others) then they should not hold the Acq card in the first place.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Any purchase that is contrary to our regulations should be documented and the various email chains and permissions should be put on the contracting/purchase file.

And that is basically how I have seen LPO sections get around the regulation.  Document the corresponding and supporting documents.  So in essence it is a lawful command as long as it has been duly substantiated along with the appropriate level of authority's approval.

Good to know.  I don't have much of an LPO back ground, spent most of my time at sea and in QMs. 

I appreciate your input, thank you.

 

[Halifax Tar]

MJP,

If the items (i.e, civilian clothing) are government business-related purchases then I am not sure what the issue is.

"So what happens if Cpl A is a stickler for the rules and puts his/her foot down?" 

Hal Tar:  Do we really need to be specific about this, if so here goes...

In normal cases not involving the QM, nothing because the Supply Tech has delegated spending authority.  When the Sup Tech's boss (QM) orders him to do it and he/she refuses, then admin or disciplinary action could result. Upon further investigation the legality of the order would be discovered.  If the CO, felt the QM was wrong then the same would apply and the Sup Tech would get a pat on the back.  In most cases a Sup Tech would have a Sr Sup Tech (in the unit or on Base) to refer to.  I do not see the urgency in the example given, so if I was the Sup Tech I would drag my heels and talk to the appropriate superiors to determine how deep the crap is that I am about to step in - by buying or refusing to buy the goods.

If the Sup Tech does not have the balls and smarts to take the time to protect themselves (or others) then they should not hold the Acq card in the first place.

Good points.  Appreciate your input.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Funny, when I say it, I am told to go to the pot threads.

I wonder what threads you will be told to go post in...  :-\

dileas

tess

48th,

I appreciate your input.  I am inexperienced in the world of LPO, I was looking for honest assistance to what I saw as a situation that could develop in an area that I am now working.  What I don't appreciate is the condescension and internet bravado tone your posts took.  Perhaps if you could have presented your info, without said tone, I wouldn't have responded the way I did. 

 

[Halifax Tar]

In what way are the "civilian clothing...for members of the regiment." government business-related purchases?  Unless the Cpl and QM are members of a CSOR, IO or HUMINT-like unit in which the members wear civilian clothes to perform operational tasks.

In my current unit the underlined section of your above post does happen.  The members do have a reasonable requirement (IMHO) for civilian attire as the issued clothing is either unavailable, doesn't exist or is wholly inadequate. 

Thanks for your help that does clear things up allot for me.

 

[MJP]

MJP,

If the items (i.e, civilian clothing) are government business-related purchases then I am not sure what the issue is.

I don't either, LPO is a valid procurement method and Acq Card is just the payment tool.  What matters to us is that the procurement was conducted properly generally not the payment method.  I would generally advise against using LPO to go buy civilian clothes for a number of reasons.  However LPO isn't always about urgency but can also be a means of expediency/efficiency.  The base LPO folks who do up larger contracts than what is generally doneat a unit all have Acq Cards and they are used to facilitate contracts.  The vendor is happy and so is the customer that they received their items/service in a more efficient manner.

In normal cases not involving the QM, nothing because the Supply Tech has delegated spending authority.  When the Sup Tech's boss (QM) orders him to do it and he/she refuses, then admin or disciplinary action could result. Upon further investigation the legality of the order would be discovered.  If the CO, felt the QM was wrong then the same would apply and the Sup Tech would get a pat on the back. In most cases a Sup Tech would have a Sr Sup Tech (in the unit or on Base) to refer to.  I do not see the urgency in the example given, so if I was the Sup Tech I would drag my heels and talk to the appropriate superiors to determine how deep the crap is that I am about to step in - by buying or refusing to buy the goods.

If the Sup Tech does not have the balls and smarts to take the time to protect themselves (or others) then they should not hold the Acq card in the first place.

Very true and I would initially applaud the Tech for ensuring that they could conduct the purchase.  However having been the QM, the QM/RQ is rarely asking the Tech to go out and and buy on their own whim.  It is generally directed and the QM is usually following their marching orders as well.  At the end of the day it isn't the QM's money, it is the CO's and if he wants something the QM's job is to advise the best methods to procure (or gently dissuade). 

In normal cases not involving the QM, nothing because the Supply Tech has delegated spending authority. 

Do you mean contracting authority or the ability to initiate the expenditure?

I would be careful here for a few reasons, one because you don't need a DOA to use a an Acq card as it is only a payment tool.  There are a few rules extra rules to follow when someone has a Acq Card but no DOA.  Generally however they would have a DOA and the recommendation is they have a procurement only DOA (only contracting authority).  That means Sec 32 and initiation authority have to come from those that are duly authorized and no LPO buyer should buy without those locked down.  The procurement DOA gives them a very valid stalling technique if someone without a valid DOA tries to get them to purchase stuff.

Another reason I would be careful is I have found that those that hold a Acq Card and their immediate superiors woefully misunderstand what they can and can't buy.  Part of it is on them but part of it is we have a number of regulations/restrictions at all levels that are not very collated in any one place.  This however isn't a financial restriction so having a DOA means nothing.  The DOA is just the requisite tool to allow for more efficient procurement and doesn't convey any special knowledge of what you can/can't procure.  The flip side of this is if a LPO person is overly restrictive and won't go out and buy stuff regardless of who is asking.  This is where your admin/disciplinary action could happen if a bit of PD on how Acq cards work fails.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Dumb question isn't there normally a form of some sort to request and approve LPOs?

Normally on ships those are authorized by whoever has the sect 32 (ie the SYO), with the various departmental storeman putting in the paperwork for the head of department signing off that it's required.  Do they not do that in a similar way on shore units?

 

[sandyson]

Away back in the '60s, Base Supply had an audit team of a couple of guys.  This was the type of question they would answer with authority. Do they still exist?

 

[MJP]

Dumb question isn't there normally a form of some sort to request and approve LPOs?

Normally on ships those are authorized by whoever has the sect 32 (ie the SYO), with the various departmental storeman putting in the paperwork for the head of department signing off that it's required.  Do they not do that in a similar way on shore units?

Yes, generally the unit's supporting supply org.  Others with a DOA can say go buy x but it is generally handled by the SSO.  Generally the LPO dude/ette isn't going to go buy something just because someone said so.

Away back in the '60s, Base Supply had an audit team of a couple of guys.  This was the type of question they would answer with authority. Do they still exist?

The RDAO's office does PPV on Acq Cards and procurement files.  They are generally pretty black and white and rigid being fin ppl and don't see shades of grey.  Except for exact policy and lessons on how to say no, I find them less than useful.  They are a good checks and balance team, the problem is we conduct an incredible amount of contracting and LPO to support the org and they simply look at a small % of the overall files.

 

[ModlrMike]

In my unit, the conversation would go something like this:

LS X, please go out and buy (whatever)

Certainly Sir, however I need confirmed Sect 32 authority from the Budget Mgr. Can you send me the details so I can staff it up?

Just go and buy it.

Unfortunately Sir, the CO has said thou shalt not spend money with confirmed Sect 32 approval.



So, while it might technically be a prima facie lawful order, the Sup Tech is prevented from carrying it out.

 

[Navy_Pete]

In my unit, the conversation would go something like this:

LS X, please go out and buy (whatever)

Certainly Sir, however I need confirmed Sect 32 authority from the Budget Mgr. Can you send me the details so I can staff it up?

Just go and buy it.

Unfortunately Sir, the CO has said thou shalt not spend money with confirmed Sect 32 approval.



So, while it might technically be a prima facie lawful order, the Sup Tech is prevented from carrying it out.

That's the nice thing with the form; it goes to the section 32 person for final approval so they can just go and buy it.  Effectively added on about 10 minutes after I signed it to the form getting reviewed and signed so the  suptechs could go buy it. Was easier as the SYO had the cabin across the flat so it went about 8 feet

That was the end state; there was about six months of trial and error and reviewing the LPO requests details to make sure they could get quickly approved once I signed them off, as I spent a while filtering out the crap and getting the good habits put in place.

Anyway, the standing orders from the CO had that process in place, so so it wasn't a lawful order until we went through those hoops.  When things were actually urgent, our suptechs were great about getting the feelers out to start the process while the paperwork was making it's way through.

 

[Halifax Tar]

My disconnect is that I had believed, from the outside looking in at LPO, that even with Sect 32 approval certain items we not supposed to be bought. 

As for the lawful command it all sounds kind of wishy washy to me and really about how much the LPO clerk wants to push the subject.  Keep point, save paper copies of all emails and other documents relating to the purchase.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Ask these guys if it's wishy washy:

http://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/218872/index.do

http://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/218446/index.do

http://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/229241/index.do

If an individual keeps questionning orders and directives, time after time, to the point it undermines efficiency and the CoC itself, you bet the CoC should charge them.

 

[Gunner98]

Max,

That is great, you googled and found 3 recent cases of "disobeying a lawful command".  If you search "fraud" on the same webpage you will find 115 cases. That is why I suggested gathering more info rather than acting irresponsibly.

http://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/en/d/s/index.do?cont=fraud

 

[Kat Stevens]

Capt X; Cpl, take your magic card downtown and buy 50 left handed widget drivers.
Cpl Z; certainly sir, if you'd just write that down for me and sign it, I'm off like 3 week old milk!

Wouldn't that cover the card holder, without bringing in the lawfulness of the command?

 

[ModlrMike]

Capt X; Cpl, take your magic card downtown and buy 50 left handed widget drivers.
Cpl Z; certainly sir, if you'd just write that down for me and sign it, I'm off like 3 week old milk!

Wouldn't that cover the card holder, without bringing in the lawfulness of the command?

There's still that pesky Sect 32 business. While the order may not be manifestly unlawful, the Tech is still prohibited from carrying it out due to the CO's pre-existing directive. Acquisition cards and purchasing are a form of contracting, and as such users are bound by the regulations regarding that issue. In this instance, the Capt giving the order does not have the financial authority to enter into a contract.

As I see it, it is not particularly a question of the lawfulness of the command, rather the ability to carry it out. When we talk about disobeying a lawful command, there's a part that speaks to intent. If you are physically restrained from carrying out the order, then intent doesn't really factor.

I'm not convinced that a charge laid in the circumstances described above would have much success at trial, and that the advice of JAG would be unsatisfying for the charge laying authority.

I would also hope that the Cpl's LogO/Supply O/QM etc would be firmly in his or her corner.

 

[MJP]

There's still that pesky Sect 32 business. While the order may not be manifestly unlawful, the Tech is still prohibited from carrying it out due to the CO's pre-existing directive.

Are you saying only the CO can give 32 or did I miss a scenario somewhere?  While unlikely that random Capts are telling the LPO clerk to go make a purchaser it isn't unknown.  Many units enable their Ops staff with DOAs for Sec 32 and expenditure initiation and while generally the request to go buy something flows through the Support Supply Org, it can be a direct line (albeit rare).

I'm not convinced that a charge laid in the circumstances described above would have much success at trial, and that the advice of JAG would be unsatisfying for the charge laying authority.

I would also hope that the Cpl's LogO/Supply O/QM etc would be firmly in his or her corner.

Agreed on both counts nor would I think a fraud charge even be entertained.  Hell the court docket would be full if we did that based on the regular occurrences of Contracting irregularities.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Max,

That is great, you googled and found 3 recent cases of "disobeying a lawful command".  If you search "fraud" on the same webpage you will find 115 cases. That is why I suggested gathering more info rather than acting irresponsibly.

http://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/en/d/s/index.do?cont=fraud

Isn't the whole thread assuming that the hoops have been jumped through for section 32 before such order is issued?

 

[dapaterson]

Isn't the whole thread assuming that the hoops have been jumped through for section 32 before such order is issued?

Never underestimate the amount of pure stupid out there in the world.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Max,

That is great, you googled and found 3 recent cases of "disobeying a lawful command".  If you search "fraud" on the same webpage you will find 115 cases. That is why I suggested gathering more info rather than acting irresponsibly.

http://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/en/d/s/index.do?cont=fraud

I didn't search, I went through the upcoming court martials.  If we conduct the same search, we have 135 results for disobeying a lawful command.  This is real.

I was reading through some of then for fun. 

The facts of this case are not complicated.  In a training context, here at Canadian Forces Base Meaford, the offender, a senior non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces holding the rank of sergeant, was a section commander, and in the course of a training exercise was clearly ordered by his superior, Sergeant Underhill, not to move a vehicle onto the defensive position used for the training purposes.  He violated that order by moving the vehicle onto the position for reasons which he may have thought sufficient at the time.  Whether or not those reasons were thought to be sufficient or were, in fact, sufficient is not relevant.  There is no question but that orders from superiors must be obeyed.  I have no doubt that having risen to the rank of sergeant over the course of his service in the Canadian Forces since 1995 the offender is keenly aware of the importance of strict and absolute obedience to orders.  There can be few things as mischievous to the maintenance of military discipline as the disobedience of lawful orders.

Someone did something as small as moving a truck in good faith of all things and was found guilty and fined 1000$. Standing your grounds over something you think is not lawful but you're not 100% sure will get you in trouble if it so happens you are wrong. 

Like it has been said before, after some digging to make 100% sure you are right, express your disagreement once, if ordered again politely ask the order in writing or have a witness and execute it.