http://www.bellinghamherald.com/102/story/324020.html

And people wonder why no one wants to sit for the board?

The station has been run ragged since 911 and despite the great efforts by the station keeping up with operations, the wonderful STANT Nazi's not only slam the station but publicly embarrass the good men and women who work there.

Great job! Like the Coast Guard needs anymore bad press right now. This could have been handled differently don't you think?

stand by for heavy rolls!!!

this shant be the end of this.

later

cliff

Coffee addict,

The Stan team did not slam the station or publicly embarrass anyone. Get your facts straight before you post. You obviously do not know how information made its way out from the station. It wasn't some conspiracy to embarrass the station by the stan team.

Since you seem to think you know what happened, I would like to hear what you think happened and what do you think could have been handled differently?

quote:

The Stan team did not slam the station or publicly embarrass anyone. Get your facts straight before you post. You obviously do not know how information made its way out from the station. It wasn't some conspiracy to embarrass the station by the stan team.
Since you seem to think you know what happened, I would like to hear what you think happened and what do you think could have been handled differently?

Okay, deep breath. And release.

First off, let me say that I'm pretty pissed off this made it out to the media. It's bad enough the unit has to deal with the internal BS coming down the pipe, but to have put in the paper? Come on. That's just wrong.

Anywhoo, I applaud the theory of standardization in the boat force community. In our line of business there is little room for interpretation. The bottom line is you either adhere to what is outlined in the manuals or you accept the consequences.

I honestly believe STAN teams don't arrive at units with the underlying intention to humiliate them. They are there to do one thing and one thing only: To assess the conformity of the unit to the standards set forth by the Commandant. In theory, a fantastic idea.

Unfortunately, what many don't realize is the enormous stress a STAN visit places upon a unit. The increased emphasis on Homeland Security missions has increased the operational hours for many units by tenfold (if not more). However the PAL for the majority of units has remained unchanged. The end result is the unit spends so much time performing the mission they have neither the time nor the energy to train the crew or maintain their assets...

Ultimately units are caught in a catch 22. Which is more important? Train, Maintain, or Operate? And at what cost to the human factor is acceptable to excel at all?

I had to wait a week to go on terminal leave at my last unit, an MSST, after a BM1 and fellow cox'n broke his femur just before the standardization crew visited my unit. My LAST sortie underway with the CG was a nav run and sar drill for the test. Imagine that. My CO, a LCDR, was along for the ride and my evaluator was a BMC. As a BM3 who had never been through STAN as a cox'n, I was more than a little nervous. The one person who put me most at ease was, in fact, my evaluator, the BMC. He was very common-sense and laid back, and in no way, shape, or form did I get the impression that he wanted or intended for me to fail. Quite the opposite, I think.

When it comes to the leak, I've found that people at all levels have loose lips. Coasties go to bars and drink and talk just as much as the common man. And people have a way of knowing things. Imagine Gloucestermen having no idea that their local CG unit didn't pass its SAR drills. People know things, and I doubt this is any intentional slight toward the Bellingham unit. I think if the paper had asked this Captain about the unit not being operational and he gave "No comment", I as a citizen might be a little more concerned.

And the story is secret how? If there is a problem, face it and fix it. The public, who pay taxes, which in turn pays for the equipment and training and salary, has a right to know. Many times, only by bringing things to light do they get fixed.

There are, obviously, some things that need to be shielded from public dissemination - at least for a time. I don't think this rises to that level.

A little embarrassing? Maybe. A lot less embarrassing than Deepwater. And, just like gas - this too shall pass.

nickap
retired and still having fun

quote:

First off, let me say that I'm pretty pissed off this made it out to the media. It's bad enough the unit has to deal with the internal BS coming down the pipe, but to have put in the paper? Come on. That's just wrong.

As alluded to above, the public has a right to know how their tax money is either being used or abused. The Coast Guard and the rest of government exists to serve the people of the United States. A government service or agency should NEVER exist for its own purposes.

Likewise, "OPSEC" or classification should NEVER be used to hide embarrasement or protect someone's miserable career.

Regardless of what we think of the news media, it is usually the news media which keeps government honest and open with the taxpayer. Without a free press, government would be given carte blanche to do whatever it desires - which many bureaucrats and other careerists strongly desire, I suspect.

All in all, problems will not be solved by simply sweeping them under the rug. With the exception of genuine national security, in order for the American way of life to succeed, government must, by necessity, be transparent. And that is why incidents such as this are and should be revealed to the people who ultimately pay the bills.

mw

I second the words of nickap2000 and MarcusLeftcoastus.

Of course it’s disheartening to see a Coast Guard unit receive this kind of publicity. However, it is also necessary to keep the public informed and to keep those charged with the administration of this service honest and diligent. When NBC first aired their negative reporting on Deepwater, specifically the NSC Cutter project, I initially knee jerked and was annoyed at the media for showing the CG in a negative light. However, after I calmed down a bit I realized that the public has a right to know how their money is being spent…and potentially wasted. The news article was not necessarily a slam on the station personnel’s performance, but rather a heads up that all is not well, and something needs fixing. The prudent thing to do when one receives bad press is to work to fix the problem.

We should all remember that along with civilians, we, as service members, are tax payers as well. We should be doubly annoyed at news like this.

Tankkllr...First off, lets look at the facts as you requested. You have the "Chief of Response" quoted several times in the article. You don't have any drunk non rates quotes as was hinted at in follow up discussions. The information from his (COR)interview informed the public that the station will be focusing less on patrols. What great information for all the drug runners that are flooding the area. This station has been watched by drug runners for years and any information like this is golden. Is that the response we need. Does that serve the "Tax Payers" who want fewer drugs on the street.

Second, by telling the paper "They did ok, but not up to Coast Guard Standards" leaves the public wondering what "ok" means and what are the "standards"? Its funny how the Chief of response said the words "we" when talking about high standards, and used the words "they" when talking about low standards. I would say that shows lack of ownership regarding why they may have done less than par on their tests.

Perhaps a better "response" would have been "Recent tests of stations have shown a need for better balance between operations and training, given the high tempo of our units since 911, we have focused more of operations and less on training. We are now looking to increase training for our members to insure they maintain the highest readiness they have demonstrated in the past. This effort will only increase effectiveness of our units, so we can continue the outstanding job we have been doing since 911."

The reason I said the STANT team is to blame, I mean everyone who works to ensure training is being conducted. It is not the non rates or BM3's at the station who are to blame, it is the entire structure of the training program even above the station level. Despite that, you will have some non rate who still has pride in the Coast Guard and the station in town wearing the station sweatshirt...commented to about the article and forced to explain it, when it should have been explained better by the "Chief of response" instead.

quote:

Perhaps a better "response" would have been "Recent tests of stations have shown a need for better balance between operations and training, given the high tempo of our units since 911, we have focused more of operations and less on training. We are now looking to increase training for our members to insure they maintain the highest readiness they have demonstrated in the past. This effort will only increase effectiveness of our units, so we can continue the outstanding job we have been doing since 911."

Very well said Coffee, I concur that it is in the USCG as well as the taxpayers best interest to properly and accuratley inform the public in a situation such as this. IMO I read the first article and say to myself WTF is going on over there, had something like what coffee suggested been added or substituted for the comments that were made, I think most of the public would say "Hey you know what maybe we have put too much on the USCG, without allocating proper resources, money, personnel technology, etc. Perhaps then the USCG might then get the funding and respect that it so desperatley deserves from our elected leaders. As a matter of fact I think situations such as this are ideal times for the USCG to speak up and let the taxpayers know just how bad the situation is getting. I think most taxpayers would be horrified by what is expected of the USCG and how inadequatley those expectations are funded-Jeff

Standby for an amazing event:

I agree with both Nick and Mark! Write it down as it does not occur often!

If the service is doing an inadequate job, identify it and fix it. If the public finds out, fine. It isn’t a secret. It’s not national security at stake. They need to tune up a little. There are a lot of place that I went to during my career that needed a tune up. And we identified the shortcomings and fix them. And when done, we were proud of the unit’s improvement.

Focus on the mission! The mission is what counts. Do it right and to the best of your ability. And don’t be afraid to improve!

With all due respect, please tell me how telling the local paper that a station is not going to conduct local patrols (keep in mind the stations AOR and focus is around an international border, and includes a big oil plant and other "targets") not anything to do with National Security. Also note that this AOR has a history of terrorist activity smuggling explosives across the border by water (Ahmed Ressam)

Read your own link. The patrols are not eliminated, but scaled back temporarily. For how long? When will they resume normal operations? When will they patrol and when won’t they patrol?

What, none of that was in the article so the bad guys don’t know the specifics? Huh. I thought for sure that information was in the article and the bad guys were already reaching Main Street. But not so.

The news is out there. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Deal with it. Focus on the mission. And get back to work. This training could be completed in one day for all we know! Or at I missing something.

Back around 1986 or 1987, Capt. Saunders, the CO of Gru Key West started a STAN team or something like one for Stations Islamorada, Marathon and Key West.

I was assigned to be part of the team. It was a bit bizarre for all of us to go to another station and try to tell them how things needed to be done as we all knew they had as much time or more than we did. Still, there was a plan of standardizing all the stations.

I read the above article and it steams me that people think this kind of info needs to go public. What's next, notifying the papers if a Cox'n fails a requal test or an OOD fails his first board? Maybe a few crewmembers fail at the range?

Give me a break. I'm guessing from past experience that maybe it was along the lines of some plotting not being dead on or maybe a missed detail on firefighting. It's not like the public should be given the impression that the crew is incompetent.

When the boats are not up due to lack of budget or some major crackdown on a large group of the crew, much like the 12 Coasties arrested at my station back then, sure....the public has a right to know.

The problem at the station will most likely be fixed in 24 to 48 hrs but the reputation of the station will take a lot longer to fix after this moronic press release.

Don

quote:

With all due respect, please tell me how telling the local paper that a station is not going to conduct local patrols (keep in mind the stations AOR and focus is around an international border, and includes a big oil plant and other "targets") not anything to do with National Security. Also note that this AOR has a history of terrorist activity smuggling explosives across the border by water (Ahmed Ressam)

I am intimately familiar with the area. I patrol it fairly regularly. Again, you do not have the facts.

I am stuck in one of those situations where I know the facts but don't particularly think it all needs to be revealed to those not associated with the event. It is not as big of a deal as people want to make it but I also don't want to speak out of school.

First off, people fail visits. It is not completely horrible or uncommon. Yes it is embarrassing but it means we have standards and we ensure we all meet them to provide the public the best product we can. If we can't meet the standard we have to regroup.

coffee, you make is sound like this particular station is the only unit in the Coast Guard who has had to work harder since 9/11 and they should be given a break and have the standards waived. We are all over worked yet we all need to maintain standard.

So all I will point out is that D13 response did not find out about the visit, decide to embarssass the station, then call a press conference to do so. Additionally, the AOR was immediately covered with other assets. Almost like the Group was there to help, knew the history of the area, and where the station was located. Weird huh?

I would prefer a little embarrasement to a little death because I did something improperly due to a lack of proper training. That being said, yes the public has a right to know, just like you want to know if the firemen or policemen in your city or town are not up to par, but I toatally understand how addicted to coffee feels as well. I hate reading anything about the CG that makes us look bad.

Tankllr,
You are cracking me up. Do you think hovering at 1500 feet gives you intimate knowlege of the area or what goes on at a station? I am glad you have "the big picture" behind the scenes. It's too bad the community that lives there doesn't have the same insight. You keep asking for fact, I keep providing them. Right from the paper. Thats the point I am making. Either tell the whole story in the paper or keep it out.

As for the group covering the area, well what a relief. I will sleep better now. I also have spent quite a few years in the AOR...in fact half my career. And best of all, it was bouncing around on the surface not flying by. I am sure everyone is pulling their weight to cover for the station while they train. That is what we do all the time.

The point I was making and perhaps missed by you...was that making comments in the paper without telling the details does a diservice to the kids who are forced to work and live there. No matter what came first the chicken or the egg, "Response" did provide the quotes to the paper. That is a fact! (you were looking for one) Second, the story was told in a way that left out details and left people wondering what it all means in the community (also a fact since I have spoken with many of them in the community regarding the news article). In fact I would not have known about it except I was called at home by friends and family there concerned.

What is not a fact is that I said anywhere that standards should be waived or that this was the only station that was overworked afer 911...that is your opinion and interpretation of my words.

I would love to Point Counter Point more facts with you, but please don't try to think that I am taking a WAG about the operations of some far away place I have never seen, or about the daily operations of station life based on what I think goes on at a station. I have quite a bit of knowlege in both areas and making my points based on that.

Perhaps when we start leaking to the press when Officers get poor reviews on their OER (the public has a right to know the performance and character standards of the pilots) it will all make sense.

The thing about "the tax payers have the right to know" is what's got me scratching my head.

Sure, the USAF accidently flies around with real nukes....of course, by all means, that should be news.

Lt. so and so along with Lt Cmdr what's his name both fail to requal on night time carrier landings....is this something that CNN needs to put on the ticker at the bottom of the screen?

Not making the grade on a STAN team inspection is something for the CO or OinC, the Group CO and maybe even the District Admiral to concern themselves with, not the Fred the barber who owns a jetski.

If the tax payers have the right to know everything, lets just set up video cameras in the stations, Groups and Air Stations so anyone can sign on to an internet site and see what their tax money is going to or maybe have open house every day so they can come in and inspect for themselves. Right? Wrong!

Don

This time the event is getting minor press attention, and thats unusual in itself, but does anyone have accurate data on how often STAN eval failures have occured since the process was institutionalized way back when?

There are a myriad of internal factors at play at each station (crew size, leadership, proximity/availability of support, number of platforms, mission/optempo mix, etc.) in considering STAN performance, but I would love to see a comprehensive staffing standard evaluation performed for the boat forces community. Manning for U/W hours with a given number of boats but taking all of the attending training and logistics work out of hide from the same crew does not seem to be a long-term recipie for success. Believe it or not, other agencies (yes, even some parts of the Army!) perform staffing standards reviews and operate within their means.

If there is a reluctance to seriously quantify what it holistically takes to do everything the CG does (espcially at the field level), it might be out of fear for discovering how far in the red the service already is... and having to ask for the difference to sustain ops or scaling back services. And wouldn't that be politically appetizing? That could even make Deepwater's problems pale in comparison upon thorough review and disclosure. Or we might discover we even have a 10% surplus of resources somewhere which could be better emoloyed elsewhere! But fear not. If history is any lesson, nobody has to worry about that happening for at least another 218 years.

KC

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KCboatz,