RBS is going to end, as a corner stone of Auxiliary programs. As with most things that seem to blindside members, this one will hit them within 2 to 3 years with some announcement posted on the whats’ new page. The wheels are and have been for some time been in motion to reach this goal for the Auxiliary. And as is with all things that happen to the Auxiliary, we will have done it to ourselves.

First some background:
In 1936 as Commandant, Admiral Waesche moved to solve the Coast Guard’s problems one by one. In doing so, he turned to the solution of using recreational yachtsmen to assist the Coast Guard in solving the ever-growing recreational boating safety problem.
In 1938 the Coast Guard provided assistance to over 14,000 cases of recreational boaters in distress. The majority of which were caused by the boater’s lack of knowledge of boating fundamentals, equipment, and laws.
So the Auxiliary was formed to assist the Coast Guard ”To promote efficiency in the operation of motorboats and yachts,” “To promote safety of life at sea and to effect rescues on and over the high seas and upon the navigable waters,” “To foster a wider knowledge of, and better compliance with the laws, rules, and regulations governing the operation of motorboats and yachts, “and “To facilitate other operations of the Coast Guard.”
In 1947 two of what would be the four "cornerstones" of the modern Auxiliary were established: vessel examination and education. The Courtesy Motorboat Examination (now known as the VSC) program quickly became one of the Auxiliary's most important assignments. The Coast Guard published a booklet of safety standards and regulations, and gave the Auxiliary the authority to train its own members as inspectors.

The Auxiliary developed public education programs based upon a core lesson plan that as grown to the current BS&S series and a spin off S&S. It was this PE program that generated income for Flotillas and the major source of new members. It became the money line. So as ‘Deep Throat’ said follow the money line.

Fast forward to the 1980s. The Coast Guard, with the Auxiliary and the USPS started a major push to have mandatory boater education. The Coast Guard’s accident rate figures, even understated by lax reporting, were used as bases state by state to work in getting the states to pass such laws. As these laws were passed several things had to happen. First, if a state puts a law on the book, there has to be a way for the citizens of that state to comply. A licensing law must provide a way and means for the citizen to get that license. Public policy then required the state to provide the training material for its citizens to study for that license. (Just think about how you get your drivers license). Now the money line. Where to get the money to do this. The Coast Guard had/has the money as the administrator of the B-W trust fund, a mandatory tax funs it each year. Thank you boaters. As more and more boaters go on the water, the more money comes into the trust. The states apply for the funding to meet the new licensing requirements, as urged by the Coast Guard to create and the B-W funds start flowing to the states. The states now give, free no cost, training material to its citizens the training booklet necessary to get the license it requires its’ citizens to have. Now comes the crunch, who to teach the class? To shorten this down, well we know the CG Aux and USPS got on the list as valid locations. Also on the list were ex-Auxies/USPS, and not necessary ex, with boating training companies, the state itself. The cash register stopped ring as much state by state.

And now, we entered the year with less members than when we started coupled with a two tier system of membership, either SO or DO. Also we have a cobbled together ABC course that requires Flotilla to provide additional material and additional exams by state. It is a short a course, which covers the requirements, but does not teach boating. The difference between ABC and BS&S is like reading state mandated drivers lic book and taking a drivers ed course. Who do you think is a better driver? (In my 17 years of Aux work, no student of any of my Flotilla BS&S class has ever had an incident, that I or any other member can remember. We have had people that we have assisted, who became students because of the assist.) We have a National organization that brags about bulk selling of the ABC course, and marketing letters to Flotilla saying go find a retail store to sell the course too. So the food chain (follow the money) is changing, feed national. Worse, in most cases the ABC is the same course that states give out free.

If you are going to say there is a problem, then you had better have an idea on how to solve it.

1. By pass the PSI ogre – Go back to a time in our past when there was provisional membership and create a non-member member, our Associate member. They pay dues to national and get the red polo shirt……No PSI check, no uniforms to buy, no politics to play. They are the volunteers for RBS, they can teach classes, do VSCs , MDVs, boating booths etc. How to make it happen! Easy as this. CG Aux signs an MOU with CG Aux Inc for teaching, inspecting and visiting…..just as they have with the USPS. Same same, no difference. Aux Inc exams and certifies these Associate members just the same way the USPS does for its members. Not only that national can sell them a new red polo shirt that has instructor and/or vessel examiner and /or visitors in script right under the Aux Inc logo.
2. Follow the money – National gets the dues, as it does now for the associate membership and shares with the sponsoring Flotilla. Win – Win. The Flotilla sponsors the course and tracks the money, sending National the cost of the books and supplies.
3. Follow the associate member…. Recruited to do RBS, no PSI, no uniform. The Flotilla does not have to worry about burn out and dis-enrolling, not an Aux member. Assocaiate member gets to come to Flotilla meetings, fellowship yada yada yada, just can not vote r play politics.
4. The Flotilla – gets money, gets members that do not want to be in uniform or go through the PSI. If they ever do they can.
5. Aux Inc gets a new boating course out that teaches boating and the state requirements and lets the public know ( advertising) that the CG Aux Inc is the place to get boating education.

Until I saw it 'in print' I did not realize what your prediction, which I think stands a very good chance of coming true, really leads. And that is the long rumored, in some circles, of the merger of the USPS and the USCG Aux. The latter in its personification as the CG Aux Association, Inc.

Structurally this would be easy to arrange.

1. In due recognition of their decades long history of collaroration with the USCGAux, the USPS is designated a corporate member of the CG Aux Association Inc - for a nominal or more likely no fee.

2. Each member of the USPS is invited to join the CG Aux Assoc Inc at a fee below that of Joe Blow citizen because of the USPS corporate membership.

Follow this addition to your logic. We would have a directly affiliated group that has passed a rudimentary security check, probably an NCICs check. They can, acccording to your prediction, perform VEs, PVs and PE missions. There is no additional tasking for the USPS there, since they can do it already.

But what could an USPS/Assoc Member do that a member of the USPS cannot now do? By a simple stroking of the pen to the Basic Guidance and Clarification - New Members and adding the words 'or Associate Member' where ever the words 'prospective member' appears, augmenting gets opened up to the Associate Member. With the recommended 'stroking'

quote:

Prospective members or Associate Members may provide direct administrative support to Coast Guard units but must have the concurrence of the command to do so. Auxiliary Liaison Officers are epecifically tasked with ensuring that the command and DIRAUX are advised in advance of any prospective member or Associate Member who desires to do so and that appropriate arrangements for recurring access are made.

quote:

Prospective members or Associate Members should never be placed in the position of having to attempt to gain access to a Coast Guard facility alone. All due effort shall be made by mentors and Auxiliary leaders to ensure that whenever prospective members or Associate Members may have need to gain access to a Coast Guard facility, they have an Auxiliary escort with them.

And since that access may get them involved in real missions then:

quote:

Prospective members or Associate Members may earn Auxiliary and Coast Guard unit/team awards if they are specifically identified as participants in the effort that earned the award and meet established award criteria.

But it goes beyond that. According to the current NavRules, the Commandant thru the COTP, can ask any boating group to perform regatta patrols. The USPS already does that. However, with their new dual hat - they could perform those patrols as USPS/Associate Members. Since we are returning to yesteryear - that would be a resurrection of our old ability to patrol under Good Sam Rules, without orders. And to roll in the money tree, CG Aux Inc resurrects the old 'Good Sam' patrol boards for the USPS/CG Aux Inc Associate members. Back in the day of the 'Good Sam' patrols a member did not have to be BCQP qualified, which fits the USPS profile that its members do not have to under go any formal training to undertake U/W missions (chiefly for NOAA now). Heck, as an added incentive, the USPS/Associate Members might be given permission to use red/amber Public Safety ID lights (purchased thru CG Aux Assoc Inc) on their patrols. There is a ton of 'stuff' that the CG Aux Inc could sell USPS/Associate Members for patrolling alone. Of course, they might have to split the proceeds with the USPS but that just makes it more of a 'win-win' for both.

And what becomes of the USCG Aux? We also return to a role of yesteryear. During WWII, the Aux became the chief trainers for the USCG Temporary Reserve and certain elements of the US Navy. However in this case, we become the chief trainers and escorts where required for the USPS/Associate Members. And we get to keep those missions for which a DO check is required.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FL51D7,

I agree that the basic boating education/regulation-oriented course is on the way out. With the internet versions available, I see classroom instruction on the way out. However, there probably still is a place for actual boating skills instruction (I note from the 2002 National Rec. Boating Survey that a much higher percentage of boaters who sail have taken a course as opposed to motor boaters-- higher skills needed for sailing).

However, I don't really see this leading to the end of VSCs or the RBSVP (as FL noted in another thread, the CG is even getting invovled in this). Heck, statements by the CG posted by FL several months ago highlighted how the CG wants us focusing more on RBS, perhaps even to the detriment of the Ops that everyone loves.

I don't see any of it leading towards any sort of merger with USPS. If it hasn't happened after decades, I don't see why we would expect it now.

By the way Curmudgeon, vessel safety checks actually started during WWII.

Heck, statements by the CG posted by FL several months ago highlighted how the CG wants us focusing more on RBS

That is true but you forgot the follow-on. The CG has been after us for several years to do more RBS, even after 9/11/01 and we have fallen flat on our faces. NACO in one of his recent messages noted that PE has been on a 5 year decline. When we fell on our faces with the VSC and PV programs we had to bring in the USPS. We cannot do that with PE since the USPS is already involved. What CurA suggests is yet another way to open up the pool of instructors.

vessel safety checks actually started during WWII

The vessel checks during WWII were mostly done for security purposes - securing the vessel's radio. The current VSC program, in all the official histories, including Tilley, traces its origins to the 1948 experimental program in the 7th District. The program went National by 1950 and the first CME manual was produced in 1953.

I don't see any of it leading towards any sort of merger with USPS. If it hasn't happened after decades, I don't see why we would expect it now.

The merger has been underground for years. The Boating Safely Course (BSC) was a joint venture with the USPS, as ABC is now. They are now full partners in the VSC and RBSVP program. Their Chief Commander and our NACO attend each others annual events and it has been customary for years that each is made an Honorary Member of the other organization. Although denied by some, there is a persistent rumor that our current but out-moded IT qualification was a direct borrowing from an older USPS program. And although our IT qualification is out-moded the current USPS Instructor qualification was put together with assistance from the USCG Academy.

Further, the USPS has long claimed that they were originally asked to become the USCG Auxiliary. If they had done so, the situation would be similar to CAP/USAF Aux. For some purposes they would exist and function as the USPS and for others they would be the CG Aux. The vote to turn down the offer was supposedly very close and based on the USPS not wanting to lose its independence - an issue that CAP routinely has to deal with. The merger as envisioned in the posts above does not jeopardize the standing of the USPS as an independent organization at all.

However, there probably still is a place for actual boating skills instruction

BTW - another area where the USPS is ahead of us. Although we were first with On-the-Water Training (OWT), our restrictions on the program allowed the USPS to leap frog us. Under our program, it has to be done on our boats, with a full crew and non-reimbursable orders. Also the coxswain and/or facility owner decides whether or not the student can even take the helm. The USPS does it on the student's boat and only requires a legal disclaimer. The student largely drives their own boat under the tutelage of the USPS instructor. Now would you rather learn boat handling skills on your boat with you at the helm or on someone else's boat where you just get to watch?

Okay, I admit trying to argue that a merger won't happen is tricky considering I just got an email talking about how USPS is now going to be doing marine visits now as well. However, I think that in the RBS program there is just so much that could be done that there is no feasible way that the Aux could do it alone, even if our membership were twice the size it is. So, there is plenty of room for both organizations to work together. Just as with VEs, there is plenty of work to go around for those interested. (By the way, anyone know how many VEs are active in USPS)?

I agree that using the Aux Assoc. to bring USPS closer into the fold wouldn't be that hard to do, but wasn't FL arguing against using the Aux Assoc. to bring boating instructors and other non-affiliated personnel into the Aux fold as a way to expand the VSC program just a few months ago. Why the switch?

Anyway, I seriously doubt that the CG is going to consider getting itself into any sort of linkage with USPS as you envision given the troubles CAP and USAF have had over the years. Ask any AF guy and I am pretty sure that they would junk their current association in favor of something like how the Aux is set up in a New York minute. So, I would doubt that the CG is going to make the same mistake by making the Aux Assoc. into some sort of semi-independent membership-based group not fully under their control.

That being said, the CG obviously doesn't have any problem with the use of MOUs to carry out specific programs in the RBS area. Maybe that could be expanded. Would they consider outsourcing the entire programs and eliminating Aux participation? I sort of doubt it UNLESS they make a decision to make the Aux into a more Operational, CG-augmenting Temporary Reserve type of organization.

I can't argue with FL's assessment of the PE program since I believe that most, if not all, is going to go internet anyway. It actually seems like a program we could cut (the basic, state course that is) in favor of the hands-on course. And I agree that the USPS model seems to make some sense.

However, VEs have been going up for the last 3 years (if I remember correctly). Obviously, we're still only doing a fraction of registered boats. Heck, we could increase VEs by 10 times and not make much of a dent. I have no clue as to how many VEs are being done by USPS or what their trend on (any info?).

I have no clue as to how many VEs are being done by USPS or what their trend on (any info?).

From their publicly available 2004 final summary report. 2,606 USPS VEs performed 33,413 VSCs for an average of 12.8 per VE.

In 2003 2,633 USPS VEs performed 30,148 VSCs for an average of 11.5 per.

In 2002 1,961 USPS VEs performed 23,388 VSCs for an average of 11.9 per VE.

It is important to know that a USPS VE must perform at least 10 VSCs to earn a Merit Mark for VE service alone. A USPS member can only earn 1 merit mark a year. After earning 25 Merit Marks, a USPS member becomes a Life Member and is exempt from National dues. Usually the district and squadron also waive dues for Life Members.

wasn't FL arguing against using the Aux Assoc. to bring boating instructors and other non-affiliated personnel into the Aux fold as a way to expand the VSC program just a few months ago.

I don't remember making that arguement at all, especially since I have long recognized that we are falling on our faces in our RBS mission.

To denizens of the old Member Forum my views on the USPS are well known and are summarized in USCGAux and USPS Competition or Cooperation written way back in July 2001.

Anyway, I seriously doubt that the CG is going to consider getting itself into any sort of linkage with USPS

Those linkages already exist. Witness the cooperation of the USPS and the USCG Academy in developing the new USPS Instructor Course.

Witness the USCG calling on the USPS to perform regatta patrols.

And the USPS isn't the only organization that the USCG has been willing to deal with. Mention has been made in the past of the Maritime Rescue Squadrons that the USCG has called upon for SAR assistance. We ain't the only game in town and the USCG doesn't treat us that way.

Historical Update:

For another reason I am going thru the footnotes in Tilley's history. Footnote 24 to chapter 3 (page 179) notes that the Navigator in 1981 and 1982 studied the history of the CME program. "It concluded that the first CBI certificate had been issued by Auxiliarist Stephen J. Sadowski at the Plum Island Coast Guard Station, Newburyport, Massachusetts, in August, 1947." CBI was an acronym for Courtesy Boat Inspection. Tilley (page 46) credits the 7th with originating the program in 1946 and it going National in 1947. Sadowski is credited with issuing the first National CBI.

So as our current NACO and president of Aux Inc, has stated publicly 'we are going to run this like a business', so as the Cable man says -'get-her done'. Lets move on to just how easy this can be and the financial rewards.

As exclusive agent for RBS and VSC, Aux does an MOU with the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, for the VSC merit badge, earned after passing an exam and providing proof that 5 VSC or RBS visits have been made or done. Aux members can not have involvement, but the probation would not extend to Associate members…..How many VSC would this bring in………

As exclusive agent for the VSC program, Aux goes back to State Farm and says, how would you like your agents to inspect vessels? Aux signs MOU with State farm to provide training to agents ($$$$$ money flows) and now any State farm agent can inspect……Bidding war breaks out on program other companies want logo on decal as State farm agents inspecting vessels have sales opportunity……($$$$$ money Flows) Aux Associate members train agents, agents must be Associate members to wear mandatory RED Polo inspection shirt. State farm buys logo rights to RED inspection shirt… Number of VSC sky rockets to new heights as inspected vessels get discount on insurance….

As exclusive agent for RBS, Inc goes to Wal mart/ Boat World and Boat US and says for a small fee, only you can have official booklets and official boating safety items displayed in your store. Our VSC inspectors, Associate members will give boaters hand outs while inspecting there boats with only your names on them.

VSC now only done by Associate members and signers of MOU, VSC program is now franchised as cash cow and VSC count reaches new levels. CG no longer has work load to train CG Aux members has VSC and RBS, cuts cost and man hours, ribbons and certificate cost go down. CG saves money, Aux Inc makes money, Boating public gets better service.

RBS becomes a business, CG awards NACO medal for increasing VSC and RBS , reducing cost to government of program, encouraging small business in us, and increasing awareness of RBS. Aux members cheer as NACO has reduced dues to members, and Aux Inc has actually provided funds and supplies to membership.

There is a big difference between making an agreement for another organization to do a specific program or activity for the CG and actually "adopting" them into the fold. The CG could just as easily "contract" with CAP to do all their aerial missions while CAP retains its own separate identity. In fact, there are a lot more incentives for the CG to do this case-by-case arrangment rather than formally try to incorporate them into the Aux in some fashion. Why go that route when it seems everyone is happy with the current arrangements?

There are plenty of RBS projects for everyone and why should the CG want to take on the extra administrative burden of keeping track of individual members of separate organizations when they can get it done through an MOU. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

It is interesting that the average number of VSCs performed by the Aux and USPS is basically similar. I do think that since the number of qualified examiners in the USPS is a tiny fraction of their overall membership, and only about 20% of those in the Aux, that they aren't any sort of threat. I expect it to be the same with the RBSV program. However, I think that USPS and Aux units probably will need to coordinate that a bit when each have units in the same area to avoid overlap.

Curmudgeon, what would be State Farm's incentive to do VSCs under the auspices of the Aux? If they want to reduce property damage that they have to pay for the simplest methods might be to require policy holders to pass boating safety classes and to have their boat pass a VSC and leave it up to the owner to find a class or certified VE. Why get their agents involved? Now, that I think about it, maybe we should be approaching insurance companies to get them to require these two actions???

I am more than a little doubtful that there is much of a chance for these other companies and organizations you through out to get involved. However, I wouldn't be surprised givne that CAP national leadership seems to be spending a lot of time trying to get corporate "partnerships" instead of trying to get more real-world missions. I'd rather they make arrangements for me to do some patrol rather than get me a 10% discount from a company I'm not going to buy anything from anyway. So, maybe your scenario isn't entirely fanciful.

Why go that route when it seems everyone is happy with the current arrangements?

Not everyone is happy with the current arrangements - especially the CG. It isn't happy and hasn't been for years with our performance in RBS. CurA's idea of farming out our RBS missions to CGAuxInc isn't necessary for USPS involvement - they now can do all of them without our bringing them in further. However, with the 'corporate' arrangement I suggest it would be possible to bring in other boating organizations into the fold for RBS. Although the USPS and some states are the only ones brought into the VSC fold, it is a long-stated assumption from the 1999 VSC Re-engineering Study that other unnamed groups could also join the program. In terms of VSCs, to talk of our competing with anyone is a bit ridiculous. Something less than 3% of all boats get a VSC so there is plenty of room for everyone.

There is a big lurking issue with the RBSVPprogram and it goes back to a requirement of the old MDV program that many flotillas ignored. Under the old MDV and new RBSVP program, flotillas are supposed to include info about the USPS and especially their PE programs in our literature racks. How many do? There is an assumption that the USPS will go out and get new partners to increase the total reach of the program but that will only work if both organizations include the others 'stuff' in their display racks. I would assume that most flotillas have already locked-in the major marine retailers in their area, ie. BoatUS, West Marine, Boater's Warehouse etc. If we don't include USPS material in our racks in those locations then the USPS is free to also go into those locations. Hence the competition for space.

why should the CG want to take on the extra administrative burden of keeping track of individual members of separate organizations when they can get it done through an MOU.

CG Aux Association Inc is a separte legal organization from the USCG Auxiliary. It would not be a burden on the CG to track the Associate Members - that would be the responsibility of the CG Aux Assoc Inc. In a way, to quote Wayne - the CG would get additional hands at 'bargain basement prices' - actually better - they would be free so far as CG admin expenses were concerned.

From an earlier post in the thread:

However, VEs have been going up for the last 3 years (if I remember correctly).

AuxInfo does not support that. The data for VSCs performed by year:

2004 - 128,591 an increase over
2003 - 116,478 which looks like an increase over
2002 - 114,846 but 2002 was a split year. Most of the data is in AuxInfo/AuxData but part of it is in the old AuxMIS system. In AuxMIS there are an additional 6,827 VSCs for 2002 bringing its total to 121,667. That forces 2003 into a decrease when compared to 2002.

And picking the last 3 years is an interesting cut-off point. If you take the years 1996 (for some reason AuxMIS doesn't have data for 1992-1995) thru 2004 you come up with.

2004 - 128,591
2003 - 116,478
2002 - 121,667
2001 - 123,092
2000 - 115,697
1999 - 134,424
1998 - 128,993
1997 - 133,904
1996 - 135,359

That data shows that not only is the 2004 data not a trend, since the prior year was a decline, but it also shows that we aren't even back to the level we were at in 1999 when the Re-engineering Study was done since the CG was alarmed at our performance.

The benefit to bringing in the USPS under the CG Aux Assoc Inc banner as Corporate Associate Members is the CG gets more augmenters and patrol time - at 'bargain basement prices' - free - since the CG Aux Assoc Inc has to keep track of them but CG Aux Assoc Inc gets to sell them stuff to off-set the cost. The USPS gets more involved with missions they (at least some of them) want to do and are somewhat restricted in now and they get to share in the sales.

The whole thing is really a good business deal for everyone.

Note: I made a mistake in reporting all the old AuxMIS numbers. In the original I forgot to exclude facility inspections and CFVEs from the count. I have corrected the data above to reflect only VSCs.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FL51D7,

However, I wouldn't be surprised givne that CAP national leadership seems to be spending a lot of time trying to get corporate "partnerships" instead of trying to get more real-world missions. I'd rather they make arrangements for me to do some patrol rather than get me a 10% discount from a company I'm not going to buy anything from anyway

There you go picking on CAP again.

Did you read the last Beacon? Have you checked out the Aux Mall lately? I would be hard-pressed to pick a front-runner between CAP and the Aux in the "Mad Dash For Cash".

Point of Fact: Both CMEs and Public Education were done during WW2, it just was not a formal program. See this article -
http://www.cgaux.org/cgauxweb/news/navf99.pdf , loved the part about the professional crew……
Point of Fact:The CG has already signed MOUS with the Aux, granting the Aux exclusive management of the VSC and MDV(RBSVP) programs. The Office of Boating Safety/CG would not have to be involved or track or anything, except pat themselves on the back for the increase in VSCs..

RiverAux: RiverAux: State farm paid thousands to get the logo on the VSC decal. Why there agents, just because that gives them an edge in the market place. Rates are set and filed for none inspections, so the current filed discount for inspections and classes would be used….Trust me I know this stuff cold.

Remember this thread is labeled the end of RBS. More correctly the end of RBS for the Aux, not Aux Inc. Aux Inc has an exclusive……..Lets see who was made a Honorary Commodore ( by the way, where did that story go)

Onward to the rest of the end of RBS…… Public Education.
Why does the Aux not have an on line course, one that meets the basic requirements and another that teaches boating….., why has the instructor training booklet not be updated since it was originally written. "enquiring minds want to know"
Can PE classes be ran like a business, sure can. How about a couple of Flotillas that ran Adv Coastal Nav at $250 a student or run BS&S on a weekly basis 50 weeks a year, with new students entering anytime with options to take the exam at the core chapter and at the total chapter point…… More later, as this is the year that BS&S runs out

I only used 3 years because that is what is in AuxData which is all I have access to (unless the older data from AuxMis is still publically available somewhere). I am aware of the long-term decline in VEs, but you had lumped them in with a decline in PE over a 5 year period, and that was the data I had to work with. I stand corrected by your 2002 numbers.

I'm sure you didn't mean "augmenters" in the way I think (people working on CG cutters or at CG stations) since given all the new security requirements I can't see them loosening up and allowing non-Aux members to do that. I'm guessing you meant for the regatta and fireworks patrols. Obviously the CG will want the USPS participating in AWW, but I doubt they are going to get involved in doing specific Operational patrols (security again).

Frankly, given all the discussion we've had about the Aux and law enforcement, I'm a little surprised that the CG would use USPS for regatta patrols, unless they are more or less being asked to pick up people falling in the water. I'd be surprised if they were being asked to "enforce" safety zones. I think Auxies can get away with such things with the public because they don't understand that we aren't CG, but most have never heard of USPS and I can't see a boater paying any attention to them at all.

Time out for a reality check.

Can we all agree that the VSC program has gone no where. That the Aux mis managed a program, that is a basic boater safety item. That the Aux Inc has a chance to make money and also possibly increase cash flow.

And, that the members that did work their butts off in the VSC, working the ramps deserve our praise.
Time out for a reality check.

While I certainly agree that the VE program is only reaching a tiny fraction of potential boats (not nearly as high as 3%, Hal., more like 1.5%), I'm not sure exactly how it has been mis-managed into this state. I have heard complaints about getting stickers at the beginning of the year, but other than that it seems like this is a program very dependent on the initiative shown by individual Auxies.

Look at it this way, if every Auxie was a VE and did 15 inspections a year (slightly above the average), that would only amount to 450,000 inspections out of rougly 12.7 million registered boats (yes, I know that many wouldn't be eligible for VSCs since in some states all watercraft have to be registered) or 3.75% of registered boats, which is still a pittance.

They definetely have to expand the VSC program, and other RBS programs to other organizations to have a real chance of reaching many areas of the country where the Aux is weak and is unlikely to get stronger. However, I think they will do this by MOU rather than absorption (no matter how it is defined).

By the way, are you implying that Aux Assoc. would do a better job than the Aux at administering the RBS programs? Aren't they the exact same people, but much less accountable to anyone when in their Aux Assoc. mode? As the Aux leadership what is their incentive to bring in and run programs by outside organizations at the possible expense of the Aux? Okay, they might get a few paid trips to "recruit" these organizations, but we're talking a ton of work. They joined the Aux to do Aux stuff, not manage a bunch of other people from other organizations that have not duty to listen to them at all.

Yes, I know "Follow the money" is a popular phrase this week, but I don't see how it would benefit our high brass our the Aux. Yes, there is some potential to benefit the CG, but I think they would rather have these other groups reporting directly to them rather than through the Aux Assoc.

By the way, are you implying that Aux Assoc. would do a better job than the Aux at administering the RBS programs?

The beauty of the scheme is that they really don't run the program at all. Except for signing up Corporate Associate Members (something they do appear good at) and enrolling them they don't have much to do. The Corporate Partner runs the program for its own organization, much like the USPS already runs its own VSC, PE and RBSVP program. Then they sit back and collect the cash from the sales to the new Associate Members.

However, I think they will do this by MOU rather than absorption

The problem with MOUs is that each one becomes an negotiation and can take years to get down. Set it up as a Corporate Membership and the whole thing becomes a standard way of doing business.

They joined the Aux to do Aux stuff, not manage a bunch of other people from other organizations that have not duty to listen to them at all.

I doubt that. Have you checked their records in AuxInfo lately? Aux stuff to them is this 'corporate' deal cutting stuff - not Real Missions. This group was only one rung down the ladder and all involved in last year's "Lazy Lout/Investment/Incumbent Protection Act" that the Nat Board passed. That would have allowed them to continue striving for higher office even if their quals lapsed. Serving in their current office would have become the sole requirement to advance - not having real qualifications and performing real missions. I don't know if they managed to get them yet, but at least one appointed DC didn't even hold a qualification in the department he headed.

I have heard complaints about getting stickers at the beginning of the year,

If that was a problem it is the fault of the FC, FSO-VE or FSO-MA. The decals have been avialable in November for several years. But if someone in the flotilla doesn't read the What's New page they will not see the decal availability notice or get the special form to order them.

You are also missing a key component of CurA's proposal. It bypasses the PSI Dwarf. Associate Members of the CG Aux Assoc Inc. would not be required to have any background check, although I could see the CG asking for a NCICS check.

CurA, myself and a few others have been having a interesting exchange of info ever since my "PSI - How Are We Doing" thread. The answer from official sources (and records) is not good. The number of flotillas or divisions with real reportable numbers (not counting noses at flotilla meetings) with PSI response rates over 80% are few and far between. Flotillas and divisions with response rates over 90% are almost unheard of. At the division level a response rate of 75% is considered 'good'. Response rates of 40-60% are pretty much the rule and you are more likely to find divisons and flotilla with below a 30% response rate then those above 80%.

We are going to take a big hit in the Great Dismemberment of 2005. CurA's proposal is way to get some of those (or substitutes) back in and performing at least RBS missions without the dreaded PSI Dwarf scaring them away.