Check These Out: Buddy Finder | Videos | SpouseBUZZ | My Friend Network | News | Military Equipment


Military.com    Military.com Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Coast Guard Discussions  Hop To Forums  Coast Guard Auxiliary    What do you make of this?
Page 1 2 3 4 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
  Login/Join 
Member
Posted Hide Post
I haven't heard anything about FSO-IS's being dropped... it's more the opposite with more FSO-IS's being trained nationwide.
 
Posts: 625 | Registered: Mon 11 August 2003Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Picture of 7555925
Posted Hide Post
Seems most of the proposed changes are at the Division level.

--M
 
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Thu 09 November 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
A bad day on the water beats a good day at the office.
Picture of ward2up
Posted Hide Post
Here's the FSO-IS change, noted at the end of this excerpt from one of the 5NR newsletters :

5NR REORGANIZATION

A National reorganization was presented at N Train.

National was tasked by the Commandant to do this reorganization and progress must be reported back to N Train in August 2008.

Changes take effect 01 JAN 09.



DISTRICT LEVEL CHANGES

The Vice Commodore position will be eliminated.

RCO’s will now be District Captains.

There will be two Districts—North and East.

DIVISION LEVEL CHANGES

There will be 11 Divisions (down from the present 15 divisions).

Division 16 will remain as it stands now.

Division Captains will be Division Commanders.

Vice Division Captains will be Vice Division Commanders.

The following Division Staff Offices will stay in place:

SO-IS (Information Systems)

SO-FN (Finance)

SO-OP (Operations)

SO-SR (Secretary)

All other Division Staff Offices are being eliminated.

REPORTING

SO-IS, SO-FN, SO-OP, and SO-SR will report to the Div. Commander.

Div-CR, Div-CP, and Div-CL will report to the Vice Div. Commander.

FLOTILLA LEVEL CHANGES

FSO-IS (Information Systems) will be eliminated.

Members will send their reporting forms directly to the SO-IS.

As the reorganization unfolds, a lot of decisions have to be considered, a new direction developed, and change implemented.

Members will be kept informed as new information becomes available.
 
Posts: 628 | Registered: Mon 28 March 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
We have met the enemy and he is us. Pogo
Picture of FL51D7
Posted Hide Post
Another Root Cause
Mission Creep and the 1996 USCG Auxiliary Reauthorization Act


The 1996 Act has been mentioned in another thread. Tilley remarks in his book that the Act was not even necessary, but that historical discussion is beyond our purposes for this thread.

What is important is what the intent of the Act was, what the Aux hoped to accomplish with the Act and what the real and unintended consequences of the Act were.

The Auxiliary membership had been stagnant or declining throughout the later 1980s and 1990s. Coast Guard budgets were also tight and decreasing. Both Gold and Silver saw the replacement of the original 4 purposes of the Auxiliary with one general purpose ‘all missions’ statement as the panacea to both of their problems. The CG could dump off on the Auxiliary (and get free labor) for any mission for which it did not have time, money or manpower. The Aux saw the expansion of roles as allowing it to reach untapped markets for membership candidates. There was a feeling in the Aux that the membership could be grown by expanding into the environmental field, which was believed to be the magic key to unlock the youth market.

So began mission creep or more accurately mission run. The Aux went pell mell into several new fields, especially Marine Safety and Environmental Protection. It also began to use alternative facilities such as supposed youth oriented PWCs and latter paddlecraft. However, in typical Aux fashion, it would announce these programs (Trident was originally announced at the 1999 NACON) but it would take years to actually produce any training materials, manuals or even a rudimentary training program. Some of the Trident qualifications are still lacking any training material. For other Trident qualifications, the material and/or trainers and/or review boards are so scarce as to be non-existent for most Auxies.

However, did the new programs have the desired impact on membership? The answer is a painful no. The much vaunted youth programs did not attract any new younger members. The average age of the Aux has remained the same or increased since the programs introduction. Nor was there any substantial increase in Aux membership attributable to the new programs. The real increase in Aux membership was almost totally do to 9/11/01 and the Aux has been steadily losing those members, as well as losing 1/3 the Aux do to the PSI. Many of the Trident qualifications required the Ankle Grabbing version of the PSI as opposed to the simpler Knee Grabbing PSI most of the membership could get by with.

What did happen and what surprised the Aux leadership was that the supposed old fogey members went running pell mell into the new programs. Whether this was due to boredom with the existing missions, a desire to collect new bling or whatever reason does not really matter. What mattered is that the experienced membership stopped performing or scaled back their involvement in the traditional missions and began performing the new ones. This unintended consequence had a ripple effect. With fewer experienced coxswains, instructors, VEs etc there were fewer mentors for new member to learn from. Further new members would often be lead (dragged) into the new programs, as that was where the excitement was. Therefore, instead of new membership coming in and taking over the new missions, the Aux had a dilution of effort and a thinning out of its experienced mentor base. None of which was good for member training.

To give you an idea of how big the problem is, 4 years ago I was the FSO-MS. I counted that just under the “MS” umbrella I was responsible for at least 16 programs and/or qualifications. In addition, that number of “MS” or “M” related programs has grown since.

And arguably, the increased mission set made the job of the leadership harder. It is easier to deal with a restricted mission set and do it well from training material to final qualification then it is to have your effort spread across a wide array of programs. This is particularly difficult at the flotilla level where the ‘hull meets the water’. The Aux went from being the supposed master of a few missions to a jack-of-all-trades and a master of none of a wide variety of missions.

That also set up a problem in the Aux. RiverAux has mentioned that an Auxie can do whatever mission he wants. On paper and in the manuals that is true. What is also true is that there is a statement in the AuxMan that the flotilla decides what missions it will perform. So the Aux could very well recruit members (and it did try) for the new programs and then the recruit discovers that the local flotilla has no interest in his chosen mission.

The solution to this is simple. At one time, I thought it was so simple that it could never be implemented. However, the recent transfer/demotion of the Aux in the CG hierarchy may make this possible. Very simply, and as others have suggested, the Aux needs to reduce its mission set. With the transfer of the Aux to the joint Boating Safety/Auxiliary Office – once again the Aux might understand what its prime mission is. However, understanding the prime mission is not good enough. In order to refocus, the Aux, with CG approval, needs to jettison entire missions overboard. That will not sit well for the members who participate in those missions but it is needed so that the Aux can concentrate and do well a limited number of missions instead of floundering (in a very real sense) trying to be all things to all members and the Coast Guard.
 
Posts: 9610 | Registered: Fri 12 October 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Experienced Member
Posted Hide Post
ward2 -- I think that is just what your district is doing. It seems as if each district is taking this direction in widely different directions as discussed in another thread.

While I agree with FL's statement that mission creep has probably impacted the Aux's RBS work, I don't think it has had nearly that big of an effect on boatcrew and air ops. I doubt many coxswains have parked their boat in order to go do marine safety work.
 
Posts: 4103 | Registered: Fri 31 December 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted Hide Post
Good luck finding an SO-IS who has the time to enter in 200-300 people's monthly totals into AUXDATA....Smile

That may work for some of those paper divisions which have 4 flotillas and 60 people in total, but my division is a bit big for that.
 
Posts: 625 | Registered: Mon 11 August 2003Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Experienced Member
Posted Hide Post
Actually, our division did it that way for quite a while, but not all that long ago pushed the work down to the flotilla level. The obvious solution is to make it possible for those tech-savvy Auxies to do their own data entry and only have an IS person do those for people who can't figure it out.
 
Posts: 4103 | Registered: Fri 31 December 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Picture of Gimpycoxn
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ward2up:
Here's the FSO-IS change, noted at the end of this excerpt from one of the 5NR newsletters :

5NR REORGANIZATION

A National reorganization was presented at N Train.

National was tasked by the Commandant to do this reorganization and progress must be reported back to N Train in August 2008.

Changes take effect 01 JAN 09.



DISTRICT LEVEL CHANGES

The Vice Commodore position will be eliminated.

RCO’s will now be District Captains.

There will be two Districts—North and East.

DIVISION LEVEL CHANGES

There will be 11 Divisions (down from the present 15 divisions).

Division 16 will remain as it stands now.

Division Captains will be Division Commanders.

Vice Division Captains will be Vice Division Commanders.

The following Division Staff Offices will stay in place:

SO-IS (Information Systems)

SO-FN (Finance)

SO-OP (Operations)

SO-SR (Secretary)

All other Division Staff Offices are being eliminated.

REPORTING

SO-IS, SO-FN, SO-OP, and SO-SR will report to the Div. Commander.

Div-CR, Div-CP, and Div-CL will report to the Vice Div. Commander.

FLOTILLA LEVEL CHANGES

FSO-IS (Information Systems) will be eliminated.

Members will send their reporting forms directly to the SO-IS.

As the reorganization unfolds, a lot of decisions have to be considered, a new direction developed, and change implemented.

Members will be kept informed as new information becomes available.


That's a flotilla level newsletter quoting national 'policy' changes. The VCO is not being eliminated, it's a title change to COS. Seems strange that no other district has any mention of the above changes. Sounds like the original PSI announcements!!

Whisper
 
Posts: 728 | Registered: Thu 06 June 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
We have met the enemy and he is us. Pogo
Picture of FL51D7
Posted Hide Post
There is a certain irony to having "T" collect the data on why Auxies are not qualifying and re-certing. "T" hasn't been able to publish their own departmental newsletter "Quest" since 2006. That despite stating in several N-Train and NACON reports since 2006 that they will publish 'at least' quarterly.

It is also "T" that is responsible for the horribly out-of-date AuxOp courses. Might that have something to do with why members are shying away from MT?

It is also "T" that used to be responsible for the content and packaging of the qualification courses. They couldn't get that done at all so it was taken from "T" several years ago and put in the operating departments. The operating departments haven't done much better.

Just some examples:

The VE Manual is several regulations out-of-date. "V" and "O" are jointly responible for the facility inspection guide which was never published. The technical supplement to the VE Manual was also never published.

I don't know if AuxAir ever resolved its problem with teaching and directing policy from the "C" version of the manual but the test was based on the Commandant approved manual - the "A" version.

The various boat crew manuals are starting to show their age.

And so it goes.

Meanwhile, long ago Nat Aux and CGAuxAssInc promised the flotillas help with buying the proper set-up for running PowerPoint and other advanced training tools. Many flotillas are too poor to afford that on their own. But the big Nat fund-raiser, ISAR turned into a multi-year losing proposition that drained Aux funds instead of contributing to them. So the flotillas were abandoned and told to fend for themselves.

In this day and age, overhead transparencies and writing on whiteboards just doesn't cut it for member training.

Might any or all of the above be contributing factors to the problem at hand?

It certainly would appear that the National Member Training Department has been MIA for at least a decade.
 
Posts: 9610 | Registered: Fri 12 October 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
We have met the enemy and he is us. Pogo
Picture of FL51D7
Posted Hide Post
I as well as others could go into a long rant how the layering on and changing of qualification requirements is another of the root causes of the problem. But someone else said it much better on the old Member Forum.

The Year is 2001 (prior to 9/11/01). The writer is the forum moderator Tony Morris, then the DC-Id. Tony would go on to become NADCO-MS (Member Services) for a 2 year tour. So without further ado, a stroll back to Yesteryear.

quote:
Re: WHAT IS "professionalism"? (case study)
Posted By: Tony Morris, 9CR 17-03
Date: 5/1/2001 12:37

The signs of over-professionalism in my previous message are just that, signs. With one exception they are not causes. At heart, the causes are good intentions. Perhaps the process can become clearer with a (partially) imaginary scenario:

A group of people in a large city banded together to perform freeway patrols (true). The intent was to spend time cruising the freeways looking for motorists in distress and providing assistance. They realized that they would need distinctive markings for their cars, so they made some magnetic signs to stick on the sides of their cars and some yellow lights to put on the roof, got their CB radios, and off they went. Let's say there were 100 of them.

It was not long before it was decided that they should have a common, well-marked vehicle to increase their visibility and also to reduce the (unreimbursed) wear on their personal vehicles. A local dealer donated a van with permanent markings, yellow lights, a brand new new CB radio, and highway flares and reflective triangles to increase safety. The local leadership decided that it would be wise for all volunteers to wear reflective vests with distinctive markings for safety and clear identification. This increased interest in the program and the number of volunteers increased to 150.

After a while, it was decided that their efforts should be coordinated with the local sheriff's department that also patrols the freeways. So the participants were required to attend workshops to ensure effective cooperation; the organizers also were required to meet with the sheriff's staff regularly for liaison purposes. Volunteers were encouraged to purchase and wear uniforms roughly similar to those of the sheriff's auxiliary officers but with distinctive markings. Maintenance costs on the van and the need to prepare training materials required the imposition of dues of $20/year. The increased cost of these initiatives in time and money reduced the pool of volunteers to 110.

Not long thereafter, it was decided that the volunteers should all have basic first-aid training since they were encountering some medical problems among the motorists they were assisting and since motorists expected them to have many of the skills of the sheriff's department that they represented. So all the volunteers were required to have first-aid training and the van was required to be equipped with first-aid equipment. Some volunteers were showing up in sloppy clothes and were a discredit to the program, so uniforms were no longer optional -- they were required. The added cost in time and money reduced the number of volunteers to 90.

It was then decided that the volunteers should keep detailed records of the time spent patrolling the freeways, attending workshops, getting training, etc. They were also required to fill out a detailed report of each encounter with motorists so the sheriff's department could examine statistics on things like times of day when assistance is most needed, locations with unusually high levels of motorist problems, etc. Periodic workshops on the proper filling out of forms were required. The cost of printing the forms and conducting the workshops increased the annual dues to $30. Membership dropped to 80.

When it became clear that the incidents they were encountering often exceeded their training, it was required that all volunteers receive training and remain current in CPR. They were also required to get basic training in firefighting and toxic substances since car fires and incidents involving toxic substances were being encountered. The van was equipped with better fire extinguishers, protective gear, etc. To cover these costs, and the loss of members mentioned previously, dues increased to $40/year. Membership dropped to 60 and the resulting loss of dues put the organization into the red.

After a number of instances of encountering motorists experiencing heart attacks, it was decided that the volunteers should be trained in the use of defibrillators and that the van should be appropriately equipped. Dues increased to $60 a year to cover the costs and the loss of income from the members who had dropped out. The increased costs and time required dropped membership to 40. The organization continued to operate in the red, and began to seek outside financial support.

It was then decided that since other communities were doing much the same thing, a national coalition should be formed so that information could be shared back and forth, statistics could be compiled centrally, and training and equipment requirements could be standardized. The cost of maintaining the national organization (travel, correspondence, printing, etc.) was added to annual dues which increased to $75. Membership in the local unit, which was now just one cog in a big wheel, dropped to 25. Efforts to obtain outside financial support increased dramatically.

Then it was decided to establish national standards for participation in the program. All volunteers were required to become proficient in dealing with hurricanes, blizzards, tornadoes, forest fires and the like. Dues were increased to $100. Membership dropped to 15.

Not long thereafter, the national organization decided that the volunteers should be trained as first responders since, in fact, that was often what they were and their basic first aid was simply inadequate to meet the needs. Annual dues were increased to $200. The added time and money dropped membership to 5.

The time required for training, meeting, reporting and other internal activities was now accounting for 80% of the time the volunteers had available. Thus they only had 20% of their time left for actually patrolling freeways. But those 5 stalwarts provided absolutely first-class service to the few motorists they encountered in the time they had left over for freeway patrols.


I think that pretty well covers why members don't qualfiy to start with and why many do not re-cert. And he predicted it 7 years ago.
 
Posts: 9610 | Registered: Fri 12 October 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Basic Training
Posted Hide Post
quote:
The various boat crew manuals are starting to show their age.

I was under the impression we were using the same manual as the AD crews. My manual at least was updated the day it was given to me.
 
Posts: 107 | Registered: Wed 23 April 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
We have met the enemy and he is us. Pogo
Picture of FL51D7
Posted Hide Post
Make that the plural form - manuals. There are at least 7 manuals that are part of the BCQP on the Aux side.

1. The big Boat Crew Seamanship Manual. This one is missing several 'cavaets' or "the Aux don't do this" type statements. You will find some of them in the manual - like in the surf zone section - but not in others. The failure to include all the 'Aux don't this' statements leads some to believe that 'what isn't prohibited, is allowed'. They forget that there prohibitions in other manuals - like the out-of-date AuxMan and the fairly recent OpsPolMan.

2. Boat Crew Training Manual. This is a short manual that almost no one reads. It is the overview of the program and contains the high-level prohibtions. One often ignored prohibition is that nothing can be added to the BCQP or changed in the BCQP without written permission of the Commandant. But districts routinely add requirements without permission. We even saw a recent case here where QEs added a search pattern problem that is not in the program or manual.

This manual has to be updated just to account for the 5 to 3 year change and the changes in the review process.

3. The 3 qualification guides (one bullet point but 3 manuals): CX, CR and PWO. The same changes that effect the Training Manual effect these manuals. Further, I believe there has been some task changes that have to be updated in the manuals.

In some districts there is even a PCO (paddlecraft) manual.

4. OpsPolMan. This is fairly current, although if you read it it seems to the Air Operations Manual with Surface and Comms thrown in as an afterthought - which is typical for Aux ops.

5. NavRules. Often forgotten but this is also a BCQP manual - at least for coxswains and facility owners.
 
Posts: 9610 | Registered: Fri 12 October 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted Hide Post
The Boat Crew Manual is a prime example of the "one size fits all" mentality of the Auxiliary. Every time we do an anchoring evolution with a QE, I have to justify using a 3:1 scope with all chain rode. No where is all chain rode mentioned in the manual. However, the 13th edition of the B.S.& S., page 111, Fig. 4-50, shows a boat with all chain rode using a 3:1 scope. Which book takes preference?
P.S. It seems to me that the closer we get to the Gold side the less members we have.
 
Posts: 538 | Registered: Mon 21 November 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Basic Training
Posted Hide Post
"FSO-IS (Information Systems) will be eliminated."
As pointed out, this is not a national directive, nor is it practical in an AOR of any size.

The changes indicated at the SO level and above are national directives. There are no Flotilla level changes as part of this move.

One of the primary drivers for AuxData being the mess it is (other than the fact it's an outdated bit of junk) is that too many Districts don't allow the FSO-IS to input the data.

It's easier to assure data integrity and timeliness if you drive input down to the deckplate with the SO as a check and balance.

The FSO-IS in 8CR inputs the data. We have a much higher level of reporting than those Districts that drive it up to the SO.
 
Posts: 17 | Registered: Mon 03 July 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Basic Training
Posted Hide Post
A missed opportunity!

This thread started out with a post of a written request for comment from NACO to his staff as to why members are either failing to maintain currency or are not even bothering to get qualified in critical programs and the best we can do is nit pick and thread drift?

Hal did post an excellent piece by Tony Morris, at one time one of the bright stars, but I do not believe any of our leaders from the time (several years back) of that post to now have been able to understand the analogy and how well it depicts much of what is wrong with our Auxiliary.

When I received the email from National, somewhat outside the “chain”, I sent it to my Division Board and staff asking for their thoughts. Included in that request were some of my thoughts as a means of stimulating the discussion. They were:

I would suggest the causes are directly related to actions taken by National:
1. In requiring worthless annual seminars like the VE/PV seminar that had no relationship to VE or PV performance enhancement or knowledge;
2. Imposition of required ICS training that many of us can find no correlation to what we do;
3. The change to boat crew currency requirements to include task testing that some might find insulting and a waste of time, not to mention increasing the frequency of needing a QE to stay current;
4. The continued militaristic approach to the change making process instead of providing the reasoning for the change and the sales tools "leaders" should have to sell the change to the membership (what I lovingly refer to as the hit the bricks approach - if you don't like it hit the bricks - which it would appear is happening);
5. Qualification processes that seem to focus more on hoop jumping than on meaningful training and qualification (ie. Does a new crew person really need to know everything we are asking them to learn to be a "basically" qualified crew person? Is how a mentor is assigned more important than getting that new crew person trained?);
6. Actions that directly negatively affect our ability to function as an organization such as failing to have in place the promised (for years) "Weekend Navigator" course before ending the support for and supply of materials for the BCN/AUXNAV course effectively putting us out of the navigation teaching business.

I have received additional comments from my Division which include:
1. The totally misguided and excessively intrusive original background check process (remember the “DO” form);
2. If National ever issued a meaningful annual seminar it would not need to be required, our members are starved for excellent training opportunities;
3. And more….

How about we try to talk about the root causes of the problems the Auxiliary is facing, which is the question NACO originally asked.
 
Posts: 59 | Registered: Tue 18 September 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Experienced Member
Posted Hide Post
1. I don't think there has been a required VE or PV seminar for a few years.

2. Even the CG doesn't have a choice about it. Aux can't fix that one.

3. I don't care how good you are or how long you've been doing it, having some form of formal requalification process is absolutely necessary. How often this needs to be done and exactly what needs to be re-tested is a matter of legitimate debate.

4. Agree on unusually poor communication process.

5. Not sure what you are suggesting. Technically, someone can be a boatcrew trainee for their entire Aux career and not have to do a darn thing. That loophole is big enough for anyone too lazy to complete the process to jump through.

6. Wouldn't disagree on that.

DO comment. Doesn't account for new losses.
 
Posts: 4103 | Registered: Fri 31 December 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
We have met the enemy and he is us. Pogo
Picture of FL51D7
Posted Hide Post
1. I don't think there has been a required VE or PV seminar for a few years.

True it is "E" and "T" that has been forcing the equally useless mandatory IT workshop down the members throat the last few years. Last year so many members did't go they had to put the PowerPoint up on the web and let you 'take' the seminar that way. Otherwise the IT REYR numbers would have gone thru the roof.

Also we don't know the original poster's district. Districts can make the annual workshops mandatory in their districts. Some do.

2. Even the CG doesn't have a choice about it. Aux can't fix that one.

The CG certainly had a choice. There was no requirement beyond the CG that every Auxie had to do the ICS courses or even every boat crew member. Only those who might be involved in emergency response, which few Auxies are, had to be. It was strictly a CG/Auxie decision to make it mandatory for everyone.

3. I don't care how good you are or how long you've been doing it, having some form of formal requalification process is absolutely necessary.

And why is that? There is no proof to the statement. We can assume the real basic skills - docking, undocking, radio comms are practiced every patrol. The latter usually pretty poorly and no one cares.

The skills test on the 3 (old 5) year re-qual are used for real by very few Auxies. Most boat crew will never use them in their entire career. There is nothing that needs to be re-qualed for in the Auxie BCQP. Just as there is none in the VE, PV and IT programs - other then the minimum annual performance.

4. Agree on unusually poor communication process.

3 way agreement.

5. Not sure what you are suggesting.

I think he is suggesting someone I and others suggested long ago. Cut the intial qualification 'hoops' to just those tasks really needed by a boat crew. If you wish to discuss that further, maybe a new thread should be opened for that topic.

6. Wouldn't disagree on that.

2 three way agreements out of six - not bad. Big Grin
 
Posts: 9610 | Registered: Fri 12 October 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Basic Training
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Only those who might be involved in emergency response, which few Auxies are, had to be.

quote:
Most boat crew will never use them in their entire career.


You're making dangerous assumptions there even if true. EVERY boat crew person runs the chance of being called out to or directly involved in an emergency, doesn't matter where you are or what you do.

The fact that most boat crew members may never do something:
1.) Does not eliminate that possibility that they may and
2.) Only increases their need for regular refresher.

If someone dies because you bungled something, "Oh, well we don't normally do that" isn't going to cut it.
 
Posts: 107 | Registered: Wed 23 April 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post