Well, since we've got our new National Commander, the following seemed to have been kicked to the curb:

1. No longer publishing the "On Course" newsletters. Not actually a big loss in my book.

2. No longer making available or is no longer producing quarterly reports to the Coast Guard. If found these extremely interesting and I really wish they would start this again.

I found one of the quarterly reports hidden in a district newsletter somewhere... I'll dig around and see if I can find the link.

River, according to what I could find on the NACO site, there have been no On Course issues or reports to the CG since last year. Maybe a question about this at the Knowledge Base site will generate a response.

It isn't just NACO. If you look over the various Aux District sites and DirAux sites you will notice an across the board dirth of current info. Several DirAuxs who were noted for keeping their websites up-to-date stopped updating in late 2006. Many of them did not 'move on' until June 2007 and several are still on-the-job so the sudden stop is hard to explain.

I'm more familar with the Aux D7 site so I'll use them for an example, but I believe any other Aux district site would show similar or worse results.

The columns are the office and date of last personal post.

DCO7 March 2007
VCO7 Feb 2007
RCO-N7 Jan 2005. The post is from the predecessor to the incumbent.
RCO-W7 Jan 2005. The post is from the predecessor to the incumbent.
RCO-E7 Feb 2007. At least the incumbent made a post.
IPDCO (who is also NAVCO-AE) no posts at all

D-CR Feb 2007
DSO-AN Feb 2007
DSO-AV Jun 2006. The post is from the predecessor to the incumbent.
DSO-CM May 2007
DSO-OP Jul 2007. Post is from a Director's Assistant. Last post of the DSO Feb 2007.

D-CP Mar 2007
DSO-MS May 2007
DSO-MT Feb 2007
DSO-PV Jul 2007
DSO-PE Dec 2006
DSO-SL Aug 2007
DSO-VE Dec 2006. Post is from the then DCO7. Last post from the DSO-VE was Sep 2006 and made by the predecessor to the incumbent.

DC-L Feb 2007
DSO-CS Jun 2006
DSO-IS Feb 2007
DSO-PS Apr 2007
DSO-PA Jul 2007
DSO-PB Jun 2007

DSO-FN Feb 2005
DSO-LP May 2005
DSO-MA Jan 2007

quote:

1. No longer publishing the "On Course" newsletters. Not actually a big loss in my book.

FWIW, I was the editor of On-Course since its inception with Gene and for the two years. I had very little influence in its content and primarily did the cleanup, spelling, paragraph, re-arranging and publishing into PDF.

I really enjoyed that process but I did occasionally choke on some of the content and made my feeling known to Gene and my immediate boss. After discussion occasionally my thoughts would be incorporated into the articles. But usually not <G>.

When Gene retired as NACO I was asked to stand by for On-Course to continue from Steve. I did so and never heard another word. Not even thanks for the past two years. So it goes in the Aux. Don't let the door hit you on the way out I guess.

I think the concept of On-Course is an essential piece of our cohesiveness. We need to hear what is in our NACO's thoughts. And I usually liked what Gene had to say. I thought his hopes for the Auxiliary were reality based. My major criticism was that Gene needed to be reminded to praise and thank the membership.

As I have mentioned before, I think NACO should be a management by walking around and thanking everybody at every possible opportunity position. Inspire, support, lead, thank... all that mushy stuff <G>.

I don't know if this relates to Steve, but some of the senior leadership are surprisingly illiterate and may be embarrassed to reveal that to an editor. I don't see that as a problem. It's their thoughts and vision we want, a good editor will clean up the rest.

It's interesting to note that I have seen very little Steve bashing. I think that depicts another truism of the Auxiliary in that if you don't say anything, especially anything opinionated or courageous, then you will continue to rise to the top.

quote:

if you don't say anything, especially anything opinionated or courageous, then you will continue to rise to the top.

This sounds like a variant of what used to be popularly known as the Peter Principle, which of course can manifest itself in any organization. The concern is how much collateral damage the organization can withstand while retaining its core vitality.

They've now updated my reports, so I rescind my comments...