Jump to content


Photo

Illinois instructor received audit today


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#31 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 14,537 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 12 October 2017 - 11:14 AM

I would guess the request for the roster is to make sure good records are being kept.  If the ISP wants to do follow up with actual students, they already have that information from the CCL applications.

 

I would also venture to say a refusal to cooperate with the audit would be immediate removal from the instructor registry.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#32 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,722 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 12 October 2017 - 01:09 PM

Just give them the rosters with all personal information redacted.

** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#33 drumgod

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 422 posts
  • Joined: 26-January 13

Posted 12 October 2017 - 01:44 PM

I would guess the request for the roster is to make sure good records are being kept.  If the ISP wants to do follow up with actual students, they already have that information from the CCL applications. ...

 

My point is that they do *not* have a list of people who have taken the training but have not actually applied for a CCL... Why should they? The list they already have is a subset of the information they are requesting and the information they are requesting is irrelevant to the CCL process.

 

If you want to check the thoroughness of an instructors record keeping, ask to see the records of a specific *applicant* or three. Don't ask for a list of everyone they've ever trained.  That's none of their business.


Edited by drumgod, 12 October 2017 - 01:52 PM.


#34 NRApistol

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 281 posts
  • Joined: 28-August 13

Posted 12 October 2017 - 02:03 PM

I would guess the request for the roster is to make sure good records are being kept.  If the ISP wants to do follow up with actual students, they already have that information from the CCL applications.

 

I would also venture to say a refusal to cooperate with the audit would be immediate removal from the instructor registry.

Do I have to let them copy my roster or just make sure I have one.  At some point I owe my students a little privacy if they trained but did not apply.  



#35 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,722 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 12 October 2017 - 02:13 PM

I would find something in writing somewhere (statute, administrative rules, info within the instructor portal you agreed to, etc) that speaks to the audit process and what's required. Absent something like that, I wouldn't *give* them anything.

** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#36 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 778 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 12 October 2017 - 02:25 PM

I would find something in writing somewhere (statute, administrative rules, info within the instructor portal you agreed to, etc) that speaks to the audit process and what's required. Absent something like that, I wouldn't *give* them anything.

 

FCCA Section 75

 

    "(f) An instructor shall maintain a record of each student's performance for at least 5 years, and shall make all records available upon demand of authorized personnel of the Department".  



#37 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,526 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 12 October 2017 - 08:53 PM

 

That's the reason I wont post any names. The last thing I need is for my certificate to be revoked because protocol wasn't followed.

 

 

 

And yet, If it is discovered your Instructor wasn't/isn't following "protocol", the protocol to which the instructor agreed to follow when he signed an affidavit and was allowed to be an instructor, your CCP may be suspended, you'll need to retake the course and maybe you'll get your course fee back from the instructor who cut corners and cheated you and may no longer be allowed to be an instructor.

 

Supporting instructors who cheat us is wrong.


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#38 Mick G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 12 October 2017 - 11:16 PM

 

 

That's the reason I wont post any names. The last thing I need is for my certificate to be revoked because protocol wasn't followed.

 

 

 

And yet, If it is discovered your Instructor wasn't/isn't following "protocol", the protocol to which the instructor agreed to follow when he signed an affidavit and was allowed to be an instructor, your CCP may be suspended, you'll need to retake the course and maybe you'll get your course fee back from the instructor who cut corners and cheated you and may no longer be allowed to be an instructor.

 

Supporting instructors who cheat us is wrong.

 

I am in total agreement but if I had walked out I would be in the same boat. Do you think for a minute that the school would refund my money? The answer is no, it said no refunds when I signed up. My argument with the range would be while he did not follow protocol, I put 30-30 (pun intended) center mass at 10 yards actually making it harder and proving that my shooting skills are actually better then required. I am not naming any names because I have my target and I know the story. The class was actually 18 hours because the first day went 10. I'm not supporting someone who cheated me, I am not an instructor. I just have been shooting for 40+ years and knew that some of the things that were being said were wrong. Most were trivial, some were a bit more important. As a student I have no idea how much leeway instructors have. The only thing I was 100% sure he was wrong about was a forcible home invasion which has nothing to do with concealed carry. I went to a class that I was required to take, at least I paid attention.


Edited by Mick G, 12 October 2017 - 11:18 PM.


#39 drumgod

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 422 posts
  • Joined: 26-January 13

Posted 13 October 2017 - 08:40 AM

 

I would find something in writing somewhere (statute, administrative rules, info within the instructor portal you agreed to, etc) that speaks to the audit process and what's required. Absent something like that, I wouldn't *give* them anything.

 

FCCA Section 75

 

    "(f) An instructor shall maintain a record of each student's performance for at least 5 years, and shall make all records available upon demand of authorized personnel of the Department".  

 

 

Well that ties everyone's hands... or does it?

 

How are non-applicants bound under the rules of the FCCA? They have not applied for a permit...

 

Might not one also argue that they need to request (demand, lol) the actual records: All records are available.  Whose are you demanding? I'll get them right away... Everybody's!?!? Okay, give me the list names so I can pull them up for you.  What do you guys want for dinner?  Also, one of you guys is going to have to run to the store and pick up a couple printer cartridges if you want copies.

 

I feel it should say "...and shall make all applicant's records available on demand request..."

 

Alright, I'm out.  I think I've made my point.  Now I'm just harping on it. @NRApistol, Thanks for taking it seriously.


Edited by drumgod, 13 October 2017 - 08:42 AM.


#40 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 12,898 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 13 October 2017 - 09:58 AM

They probably just want to compare the list to your your tax forms to see if you paid taxes on the income.

Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?

 

 


#41 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,526 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 13 October 2017 - 10:07 AM

 

 


 

FCCA Section 75

 

    "(f) An instructor shall maintain a record of each student's performance for at least 5 years, and shall make all records available upon demand of authorized personnel of the Department".  

 

 

Well that ties everyone's hands... or does it?

 

How are non-applicants bound under the rules of the FCCA? They have not applied for a permit...


 

 

The instructor is bound by the rules.


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#42 drumgod

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 422 posts
  • Joined: 26-January 13

Posted 13 October 2017 - 12:23 PM

lol. I said I was out but I guess not...

 

 

How are non-applicants bound under the rules of the FCCA? They have not applied for a permit...

 
The instructor is bound by the rules.

 

 

Understood.

 

Ludicrous example to highlight my point:

 

What if it also said that the instructor is to provide all of their neighbors garden gnomes on demand? That doesn't make the gnomes the instructor's to give. It's still not legal for him to take them and turn them over.  The neighbor has done nothing to agree to it; the same way a student has not agreed to share their info with the state... until they apply for a permit... In which case *they* have turned over their own info.  I don't see how the instructor can make that agreement for them.  It would be different if the instructor had all students sign a release but I'm betting almost none do. Mine didn't.

 

I see turning my info over without my permission to be the same as giving them my garden gnomes. I feel state has no right to request it and the instructor has no right to give it. Even if *they* agreed to it, *I* didn't and it's my "property".



#43 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 778 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 13 October 2017 - 01:39 PM

lol. I said I was out but I guess not...

 

 

How are non-applicants bound under the rules of the FCCA? They have not applied for a permit...

 
The instructor is bound by the rules.

 

 

Understood.

 

Ludicrous example to highlight my point:

 

What if it also said that the instructor is to provide all of their neighbors garden gnomes on demand? That doesn't make the gnomes the instructor's to give. It's still not legal for him to take them and turn them over.  The neighbor has done nothing to agree to it; the same way a student has not agreed to share their info with the state... until they apply for a permit... In which case *they* have turned over their own info.  I don't see how the instructor can make that agreement for them.  It would be different if the instructor had all students sign a release but I'm betting almost none do. Mine didn't.

 

I see turning my info over without my permission to be the same as giving them my garden gnomes. I feel state has no right to request it and the instructor has no right to give it. Even if *they* agreed to it, *I* didn't and it's my "property".

 

 

As compared to the garden gnome analogy, the applicant has no right of ownership over the record of teaching and performance about him.  The instructor maintains possession and control of the record.  It is a matter of public knowledge, as noted in the FCCA, that the instructors will maintain the records and have them available on demand by the ISP.  The applicant does not need to give permission for the review.  Whether or not the applicant reviewed the law before taking the class does not matter. 



#44 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,526 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 13 October 2017 - 01:45 PM

All I can think of as a response is that if the instructor refused to give up any requested info on his course to ISP, he might lose his ability to be an instructor and all of his students may have their permits suspended until they took another qualified course. That wouldn’t be good for anyone involved.

Pretty sure your instructor did not agree to garden gnome relocation.

ISP sets the rules of this game, not the instructor or the student. If you wanted to do the course and had no intention of applying for a permit, I suppose you could ask to audit the course with no certificate on completion. I expect (your) intention is to apply for a permit one day. At that point you surrender the info anyway. I don’t see any point in any instructor protecting your privacy and jeopardizing his certification in the in between time. I’m sure there are plenty of better shooting courses one could take that are more private.

Perhaps there should be another change...
Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#45 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,812 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 13 October 2017 - 02:20 PM

I was just reviewing Section 1231.30 of the Administrative Code to look at the record keeping requirements for instructors when I ran across this:

c)         The Department may, without providing prior notice, audit an Instructor's scheduled training for purposes of investigating allegations that an Instructor and/or curriculum is not in compliance with the Act and this Part.  

1)         To facilitate an adequate audit trail, instructors shall maintain all records to support any training certification as required by Section 75(f) of the Act, which shall include...


The way I read this is that ISP is authorized to conduct an audit to investigate allegations of noncompliance by the instructor. What, if anything, empowers them to conduct random audits without an allegation against the instructor?

Also, in regards to the curriculum, the Administrative Code says:

g) The Department may request a complete course outline and instructional notes or any additional course related information from the applicant. If the applicant refuses the request, the application will be deemed incomplete and returned to the applicant.

h)         Upon receiving substantiated information that a curriculum is not consistent with Section 75 of the Act, the Department may remove that curriculum from the list of approved curriculums maintained on the Department's website.


If my curriculum has been submitted and approved, I am no longer an "applicant" and not subject to submit a copy of my curriculum. The only way to remove my curriculum from the approved list is to after a substantiated allegation that it doesn't meet the requirements of the law.

These "audits" appear to be illegal fishing expedition on the part of the ISP.

Edited by stm, 13 October 2017 - 02:31 PM.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#46 NRApistol

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 281 posts
  • Joined: 28-August 13

Posted 13 October 2017 - 02:38 PM

All I can think of as a response is that if the instructor refused to give up any requested info on his course to ISP, he might lose his ability to be an instructor and all of his students may have their permits suspended until they took another qualified course. That wouldn’t be good for anyone involved.
 

If the State Police want to see my records I will comply, does not mean I have to like it.  As far as my curriculum, I will only provide an outline, I will not teach the State Police for free until forced too.

 

Soundguy, I respectfully disagree.  If the students had the correct training their instructor`s later actions should have no bearing.


Edited by NRApistol, 13 October 2017 - 02:58 PM.


#47 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 12,898 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 13 October 2017 - 06:12 PM

1)         To facilitate an adequate audit trail, instructors shall maintain all records to support any training certification as required by Section 75(f) of the Act, which shall include...
I'd like to know what co.es after shall include.

Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?

 

 


#48 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,812 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 13 October 2017 - 06:48 PM

 

1)         To facilitate an adequate audit trail, instructors shall maintain all records to support any training certification as required by Section 75(f) of the Act, which shall include...

I'd like to know what co.es after shall include.

1) To facilitate an adequate audit trail, instructors shall maintain all records to support any training certification as required by Section 75(f) of the Act, which shall include:

A) copies of training certificates currently accepted to satisfy the prior training credit submitted by students; and

:cool: written training rosters that shall include:

i) instructor's name and CCT number;

ii) curriculum name and CCC number;

iii) student's full legal name;

iv) student's date of birth;

v) student's address;

vi) student's phone number;

vii) total hours attended, broken down to identify hours per topic covered as approved in Section 1231.40;

viii) pass/fail live fire qualification; and

ix) an indication of yes/no on issuance of ISP CCL training certificate, which shall serve as proof of completion of training.

 

 

This is located at: http://ilga.gov/comm...31sections.html

 

 


Edited by stm, 13 October 2017 - 06:53 PM.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#49 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 12,898 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 13 October 2017 - 07:25 PM

Thanks

Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?

 

 


#50 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 12,898 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 13 October 2017 - 08:19 PM

My rosters are all up to snuff!

Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?

 

 


#51 drumgod

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 422 posts
  • Joined: 26-January 13

Posted Today, 10:06 AM

FWIW, I received my ccl towards the beginning of things. I'm just playing devil's advocate on a matter that seems... "over-reachy" to me. I'm certainly not advocating that anyone lose their teaching creds over such a minor issue. That still doesn't mean it sits right with me though.

 

I'll crawl back into my hole now.  Thanks guys.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Google (1)