I got this in an e-mail.. What do you think??

R 271708Z FEB 08
FM COMDT COGARD WASHINGTON DC//CG-01//
TO ALCOAST
BT
UNCLAS //N05400//
ALCOAST 103/08
COMDTNOTE 5400
SUBJ: CG MODERNIZATION AND REDISTRIBUTION OF BILLETS TO THE FIELD

1. AS PART OF THE ONGOING CG MODERNIZATION EFFORT, I RECENTLY APPROVED THE REALLOCATION OF 48 BILLETS FROM CG HEADQUARTERS TO FILL CRITICAL NEEDS AT FIELD UNITS. THIS REDISTRIBUTION ALSO REPRESENTS ANOTHER STEP IN THE COMMANDANTS VISION AND OUR ONGOING EFFORTS TO FOCUS THE ENTIRE COAST GUARD ON MISSION EXECUTION AND MISSION SUPPORT.

2. THE BILLETS WE ARE SENDING TO THE FIELD WILL BE USED TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED BY SECTOR COMMANDERS AND PROVIDE A FIRST INSTALLMENT ON A MUTLI-YEAR EFFORT TO ENHANCE MARINE SAFETY CAPACITY AND PERFORMANCE. THESE ADDITIONS, WHILE COMPRISING ONLY A
SMALL PART OF OVERALL SERVICE NEEDS, REPRESENT DELIBERATE PROGRESS TOWARD ADDRESSING SECTOR MANNING REQUIREMENTS AND FULFILLING OUR COMMITMENT TO IMPROVE MARINE SAFETY SERVICE DELIVERY.

3. SPECIFIC REPROGRAMMING LOCATIONS WILL BE ISSUED BY SEPCOR.

4. INTERNET RELEASE AUTHORIZED.

5. VADM ROBERT PAPP, CHIEF OF STAFF, SENDS
BT


Wray...

Wray, with looking at the state of things it makes me wonder why only 48 billets are being moved from HQ when it is only a drop in a bucket compared to the issues at hand. With the increased OPTEMPO and training requirements of ALL units this is the only one that requires a press release and immediate action. For once, it would be nice to see the operational units, boats and aircraft alike, get the people they need instead of here is your increase, and our response is "Roger That"(after the political fight where you lose). And yes I have been in the "M" world. But, thats my 2 cents.

Dont we all wish we had just one extra billet that we didnt really need. Glad to see HQs could come up with 48. With any luck they wont come with the classic zombie mentality.

T

Truth be told, this CGHQ playing catch up. The Maritime Industry, both foreign and domestic, has been growing rather rapidly over the last decade or two. Unfortunately, the Coast Guard has not kept up with that growth to maintain the personnel to adequately carry on our regulatory enforcement responsibilities that goes along with it. Couple this with the personnel demands of "Sectorization," you have a semi-serious problem on your hands.

I wouldn't say "M" is running the CG, I'd say attention is finally being paid to it again. If you read many of the criticisms of late, many of them have validity. These personnel strategies and increases are directly addressing industry's and Congress's concern.

quote:

Unfortunately, the Coast Guard has not kept up with that growth to maintain the personnel to adequately carry on our regulatory enforcement responsibilities that goes along with it.

Doesn't this seem like something the "Operations Dept." would or should be in taking care of?

Wray...

No.

Under the new Sector alignment, Prevention is the reg side, Opns falls under Response.

The New Guard.

In my humble opinion Sector = MSO on steroids + the extra divisions from the old operations side of the house that they dont know what to do with. but that just my opinion, the New Guard

quote:

Originally posted by Wray:
Doesn't this seem like something the "Operations Dept." would or should be in taking care of?

Wray...

The Operations Department does take care of that... Prevention Operations.

I've spent time in both Response and Prevention. My current position in Response involves VBST operations. I can say with complete certainty that I issued more fines, Captain of the Port Orders, and notices of violations while serving on the Prevention side of the house.

Unless the CG gets broken apart, Sectors are here to stay. We're a multi-missioned service/agency all of our missions have to be supported equally if we are to succeed.

I haven't been stationed in a "real" Sector yet. I am still in one of the very few Groups left and we don't even have a "M" section so they aren't running it all.

Let me know if there is a GS-12 job in Tampa Bay. Besides CG time, I have over 17 yrs of marine ops experience in hazmat, containers, break bulk, and barges.

I notices a lot of civilian Homeland Security port ops jobs opening nationwide. Are these the same or addition to the CG jobs?

quote:

Originally posted by Wray:

quote:

Unfortunately, the Coast Guard has not kept up with that growth to maintain the personnel to adequately carry on our regulatory enforcement responsibilities that goes along with it.

Doesn't this seem like something the "Operations Dept." would or should be in taking care of?

Wray...

Think back MC. Who ran MARDEZ? If they did it then, they can do it now couldn't they?

quote:

Originally posted by RBruce:
Let me know if there is a GS-12 job in Tampa Bay. Besides CG time, I have over 17 yrs of marine ops experience in hazmat, containers, break bulk, and barges.

I notices a lot of civilian Homeland Security port ops jobs opening nationwide. Are these the same or addition to the CG jobs?

A local CWO4 Marine Inspector is in the process of retiring, and then will report back the following Monday as the new civilian Marine Inspector in the office.

Not an additional billet, a billet conversion.

Just my opinion, but Wray, you forgot the B before the "M", and the answer is yes.

T

Each Port Authority/Sector should have at least one long term civilian hazmat inspector/expert on call and a one or two day workers checking documents and cargo packing. I do not think these positions should be uniformed CG. It takes years to learn the business and to develop a workable relationship with the many entities in each port. An arguement can be made to move this function into ICE. The Sector's uniform staff should focus on vessel/port operations.

Containerized shipping is self-policing, but due to handling speeds many mistakes are caught late. The general public would be shocked to know how many imported containers are unsafe. I personally "fix" many unsafe containers without Gov't involvement, all actions within the letter of the law.

Industry is relunctant to bring the CG into their minor problems due to the potentional public exposure and heavy Gov't hand that acts like a 800 lbs gorilla when a small chimp would do the job. The public would be better served when the Gov't has someone who can balance business and public interests and still fix problems.

quote:

Originally posted by RBruce:
Each Port Authority/Sector should have at least one long term civilian hazmat inspector/expert on call and a one or two day workers checking documents and cargo packing. I do not think these positions should be uniformed CG. It takes years to learn the business and to develop a workable relationship with the many entities in each port. An arguement can be made to move this function into ICE. The Sector's uniform staff should focus on vessel/port operations.

Containerized shipping is self-policing, but due to handling speeds many mistakes are caught late. The general public would be shocked to know how many imported containers are unsafe. I personally "fix" many unsafe containers without Gov't involvement, all actions within the letter of the law.

Industry is relunctant to bring the CG into their minor problems due to the potentional public exposure and heavy Gov't hand that acts like a 800 lbs gorilla when a small chimp would do the job. The public would be better served when the Gov't has someone who can balance business and public interests and still fix problems.

I may diagree with you a little. I'm fortunate enough to have some downright outstanding container inspectors in my shop. They also have developed one hell of working relationship with the Port line clerks and many of the local shippers.

As far as not seeing a lot of the problems, well, look at the number of containers that move through the ports. We could combine every federal agency out there, try to inspect them all, grind commerce to a hault and still probably not get them all.

wray,

they may be throwin in the extra bodies in preparation of turning all the workboats from uninspected to inspected!!! that will be fun.

later

cliff

quote:

Originally posted by Fishstyx:

quote:

Originally posted by RBruce:
Each Port Authority/Sector should have at least one long term civilian hazmat inspector/expert on call and a one or two day workers checking documents and cargo packing. I do not think these positions should be uniformed CG. It takes years to learn the business and to develop a workable relationship with the many entities in each port. An arguement can be made to move this function into ICE. The Sector's uniform staff should focus on vessel/port operations.

Containerized shipping is self-policing, but due to handling speeds many mistakes are caught late. The general public would be shocked to know how many imported containers are unsafe. I personally "fix" many unsafe containers without Gov't involvement, all actions within the letter of the law.

Industry is relunctant to bring the CG into their minor problems due to the potentional public exposure and heavy Gov't hand that acts like a 800 lbs gorilla when a small chimp would do the job. The public would be better served when the Gov't has someone who can balance business and public interests and still fix problems.

I may diagree with you a little. I'm fortunate enough to have some downright outstanding container inspectors in my shop. They also have developed one hell of working relationship with the Port line clerks and many of the local shippers.

As far as not seeing a lot of the problems, well, look at the number of containers that move through the ports. We could combine every federal agency out there, try to inspect them all, grind commerce to a hault and still probably not get them all.

Not just the containers, what about the contents?

One of our reserve agents did some cross training with CBP in MN on container inspections (cargo vice the containers themselves).

It was the first time the contents of the containers had been looked at since the containers arrival on the west coast.

How's that for ya...

quote:

Originally posted by JerryG:

quote:

Originally posted by Fishstyx:

quote:

Originally posted by RBruce:
Each Port Authority/Sector should have at least one long term civilian hazmat inspector/expert on call and a one or two day workers checking documents and cargo packing. I do not think these positions should be uniformed CG. It takes years to learn the business and to develop a workable relationship with the many entities in each port. An arguement can be made to move this function into ICE. The Sector's uniform staff should focus on vessel/port operations.

Containerized shipping is self-policing, but due to handling speeds many mistakes are caught late. The general public would be shocked to know how many imported containers are unsafe. I personally "fix" many unsafe containers without Gov't involvement, all actions within the letter of the law.

Industry is relunctant to bring the CG into their minor problems due to the potentional public exposure and heavy Gov't hand that acts like a 800 lbs gorilla when a small chimp would do the job. The public would be better served when the Gov't has someone who can balance business and public interests and still fix problems.

I may diagree with you a little. I'm fortunate enough to have some downright outstanding container inspectors in my shop. They also have developed one hell of working relationship with the Port line clerks and many of the local shippers.

As far as not seeing a lot of the problems, well, look at the number of containers that move through the ports. We could combine every federal agency out there, try to inspect them all, grind commerce to a hault and still probably not get them all.

Not just the containers, what about the contents?

One of our reserve agents did some cross training with CBP in MN on container inspections (cargo vice the containers themselves).

It was the first time the contents of the containers had been looked at since the containers arrival on the west coast.

How's that for ya...

Contents are addressed and inspected as well. The CG's inspection program is primarily driven by HAZMAT. Labeling, blocking and bracing, and packaging are checked when container inspections are conducted. There are certain commodities are that aren't opened for safety reasons, not policy but risk management based on the inspector's judgement.

Mind you, we don't have the resources to conduct 100% inspections. No one does IMO. The numbers are too great and the effect on commerce would be significant.

Wray, if I recall correctly, during the streamlining initiative of the mid 90s, group ops ashore was being slowly but surely overtaken by MSOs. Case in point, your old Group Baltimore and then shortly after, NY. They were called back then “Activities”, now they are called “Sectors”…same thing. Perhaps like someone suggested here, and MSO in steroids. Also, someone here was quick in letting you know that the “Ops Department” no longer exist and that is because now the old MSO’s Prevention and Response Departments are in place since those days. One distinction between Baltimore & NY is that in NY the CO of the MSO was also the Grp Commander…so they were already in steroids. In Baltimore, the Grp Commander happily delivered her Grp knowing that she would be rewarded w/ a Star (which she did). It served her well knowing that her background in Ops was as limited as you can have found in the senior CAPT ranks (only sea time was on the GI ferry a few times unless you counted her spouse’s sea time). In summary, we retired on time!

Actually, the Response Department at Sector is the Legacy Group Ops Department with the added bonus of the Incident Management Division.

MSOs did not have "Response" departments. They had Inspection Dep, Port Operations Dep and Investigation Dep with an REC kicker in some ports. The Marine Environmental Response/Protection (MER or MEP) used to reside as Branch within the Port Ops Dep.