Who owns what between the Army and NG?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I like re-writing regs. I feel like I'm making up my own rules...which is pretty much what I do anyway.

I recently got several RFIs about renting facilities owned by the Guard. When I consulted the governing state reg I noticed there were some glaring omissions and a schedule of fees that was 8.5 years old. Additionally the Indeminfication and Hold Harmless had the CO Guard seeking indemnification for the US Government. The officer who's lane this is in took a fiscal law approach and the following deabte occurred (more or less):

"We can't do that," I told officer in charge of the reg. "We cannot enter into agreement on behalf of the USG even to their benefit or relief."

"But they pay 50, to 75 percent of construction and maintenance costs on some of our facilities."

"Yes, but those are prior agreements, they're still state assets. We hold title once we take occupancy."

"But your uniform says 'US Army'"

"But I'm Title 32 unless 'federalized.' Thus by default I'm state property; ditto our facilities. The feds could not occupy them without prior agreement or federalization; just like we can't wander around Ft. Carson however we want."

Then the JAG weighed in...

[BlueStateSaint]

Please go on!

[Airwolf]

Don't you love Catch -22's?

[DumbAss Tanker]

Your fundamental mistake is that the nature of the HH agreement is NOT one of making any obligation for the US government, and it is therefore not a fiscal law issue.  Anyone who tells you it is doesn't know as much about fiscal law and the ADA as they think they do.  Since the USG sprang for most of the cost of building the playhouse and then entrusted the NG with the title, there is an irreducible potential liability risk particularly in states with more runaway court systems, like most of the 9th Federal Circuit.

Whether the risk is sufficiently probable to be worth including the USG is another question.   NGB would probably say no, OTJAG-Army would probably say yes.

[obumazombie]

Don't you love Catch -22's?

Joseph Heller. Great book. Sometimes my ADD loops on room 222. Now that is a cryptic comment.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Your fundamental mistake is that the nature of the HH agreement is NOT one of making any obligation for the US government, and it is therefore not a fiscal law issue.  Anyone who tells you it is doesn't know as much about fiscal law and the ADA as they think they do.  Since the USG sprang for most of the cost of building the playhouse and then entrusted the NG with the title, there is an irreducible potential liability risk particularly in states with more runaway court systems, like most of the 9th Federal Circuit.

Whether the risk is sufficiently probable to be worth including the USG is another question.   NGB would probably say no, OTJAG-Army would probably say yes.

I never said it was a fiscal law issue; I said FL was irrelevant to the decision. I argued the title owner held all liability as with most property issues with the caveat that deep pockets would still draw the USG in but we still can speak for them.

The JAG pretty much agreed and suggested we send it to the state AG but their office actually charges money from other department budgets to keep traffic down.

[formerlurker]

I don't know if anyone is paying attention, but there is presently massive cuts and realignments being done to the guard and reserve.   AD has raped ANG units of planes, essentially RIFing flight crews in their entirety. 

This is just phase one.   Those buildings you speak of that is the subject of inquiry may be quite vacant soon.   I am sure the state will then have no problem with AD utilizing them for whatever purpose they require.   

[DumbAss Tanker]

"We can't do that," I told officer in charge of the reg. "We cannot enter into agreement on behalf of the USG even to their benefit or relief."

Snugs, whether you understand it or not, what you wrote above IS saying it's a fiscal law issue.

I don't know if anyone is paying attention, but there is presently massive cuts and realignments being done to the guard and reserve.   AD has raped ANG units of planes, essentially RIFing flight crews in their entirety. 

This is just phase one.   Those buildings you speak of that is the subject of inquiry may be quite vacant soon.   I am sure the state will then have no problem with AD utilizing them for whatever purpose they require.   

I expect that due to the huge cost of the planes and the resulting low absolute numbers of them, the rules are probably designed to make that easier for the air components.  But, at least as far as the Army is concerned, the AC can't really pull things like buildings back from the RC.  In fact the reason why we have separate OMA and OMAR appropriations is precisely because the AC got so carried away with raping the RC in Viet Nam days that it was rendering huge chunks of the Guard and Reserve totally "Not Mission Capable" (NMC, deadlined, C5 on the USR, what have you).  They still have some flexibility to do it to some degree, either by moving force structure out of the RC (But they risk getting a lot of unwanted "Help" from Congress if they go overboard with that) or strangling the RC of supply resources like Class III and Class V, but not like it was then.