If the inactive member is still sending in their money to the Flotilla, what's so terrible about "taking up room on the roster"? Is there a nationwide roster space shortage?
No but there is a nationwide quorum shortage. Don't forget that any member on the roster, except retirees counts toward the total flotilla membership. If the number of inactives is low you don't have a problem. But as the percent climbs, and from official notices it is, then you have a problem getting a quorum at meetings. Without a quorum you can still run a meeting, take reports etc but you cannot vote on anything. And don't think for a second that a side that thinks it will lose a vote will not do a quorum call.
The situation was bad enough that the current AuxMan lowered the percent for a quorum from 33% present (a third) to 25% present (a quarter). Many flotillas still cannot meet the quorum percent even at the lower number.
There is another issue with inactive members, someone once called it 'voting the graveyard'. I don't know of any cases of this happening locally but it has been complained about before. That is the 'inactives' don't show all year. They don't do anything. The Young Turks, who do all the work, have all sorts of great ideas so they challenge the Old Guard at election time. The Old Guard gets their good but inactive buddies to show up for the election meeting and the Young Turks get defeated - and eventually quit.
There is another issue with inactive members, someone once called it 'voting the graveyard'. I don't know of any cases of this happening locally but it has been complained about before. That is the 'inactives' don't show all year. They don't do anything. The Young Turks, who do all the work, have all sorts of great ideas so they challenge the Old Guard at election time. The Old Guard gets their good but inactive buddies to show up for the election meeting and the Young Turks get defeated - and eventually quit.
Good points. I have seen that gravyard voting in action, especially when an old-guard entrenched member is heavily challenged and calls out the old-guard troops for support.
Still, I think that there is no reason to purge the inactive members. In fact I think it would be an act of unkindness by the Aux what we would ultimately pay for in loss of more active members.
While NACO is wringing his hands and doing nothing to stop our slide to oblivion, I have had to cancel yet another patrol for lack of crew. Maybe instead of looking forward we should be looking back at what made the Auxiliary the success it was twenty years ago when I first joined We had fun doing patrols and the "fourth cornerstone" was alive and well. Ever since we have become "one" with the Gold side we have been going downhill. I for one, would welcome bringing back the "old" Auxiliary and dumping the failed model we have now.
Back in the good old days before OTOs when we had local Directors we had a Director who started and ended everything he did with a question: "Are we having fun yet?" Funny thing is we usually were. Those were the days.
I don't understand this position at all. If the inactive member is still sending in their money to the Flotilla, what's so terrible about "taking up room on the roster"? Is there a nationwide roster space shortage?
As long as they are still in contact, there is always the possibility that a FSO-PS doing a good job can re-activate them. Of at least invite them to s inactive members honoring dinner. If they are gone, then they are really gone.
What's the problem with a member of 20 years coasting along, keeping in loose touch and smiling at the memories?
Why can't an alienated member withdraw from active participation while wounds are licked and time heals the hurts?
Particularly on that last statement I agree with the Engle completely. There have been several occasions in my experience when a member was so alienated by some semi-official action that he dropped out for substantial amounts of time and then recovered to come back and become super-productive.
Comming from an ex regular coast guard boatswainsmate and coxswain I was interested in the aux. a few years ago I attended 1 meeting, and never returned. The flotilla commander was the only one I met that was inviting. I learned that there is an enourmous amount of time before I would become of any use. As a working person I don't have it. There was no signs of morale within the flotilla. I saw beauracy, time, money, and no mental reward. I also remember how the CG would never call the auxillarists to help with ANY cases. Even when the case was 100 yards from one and we were 30 minutes away. Unforunately I become part of the the volunteer community by just monitering ch 16. This could be one example of the decline.
When I complained about the current lack of fun in the Auxiliary, I was told by the FC: "If you want fun, join a yacht club." My wife and I took his advice and joined a yacht club. He was right. A yacht club is a whole lot more fun than the Auxiliary as it is now being run. We wil continue to be active Auxiliary members, but will always look back with fond memories of when the Auxiliary was a fun outfit, and not the paramilitary abortion it is now.
Now there's a man who understands the essence of the challenge.
You would be amazed how many leaders I have met who proclaim "I did not join the Auxiliary to have "Fun", we should not be striving to make our Auxiliary experience "Fun"!"
Somehow, they have forgotten that that is what volunteers expect. It can also be difficult, demanding, serious, etc., but in the end, the new experience should be "That was fun!"
CAPT Mark Kern, then CHDIRAUX, said if you aren't enjoying yourself, you aren't doing the Auxiliary right. annnd back then it seems everyone had some fun. Para-military? Yep, we are getting there!
I didn't think of it as "fun" as in its a party and all that crap, I thought it more as pleasureable and enjoyment.
If yer doing whatever it is in the AUX ya do and you ain't having some level of pleasure or enjoyment out of it then what in Gods green acres are ya doing it for??
My "forte" was(is, just not in the AUX anymore) small boat operations. I get pleasure and enjoyment outa doing it. And on the AUXFAC I patrolled on we always kept it light witha joke or a laugh in the air-JRC
Like Pach, I too, enjoyed what I was doing. It certainly wasn't "fun" spending more than two hours sanding down the chart table on the cutter until my fingers blistered, or scraping and sanding rust, or painting the ship, or getting yelled at by the chief for accidentally putting my soda in *his* cup-holder (gasp!) but the overall experience-- being out on the water for a few days at a time, getting to helm, keeping the chart, being on lookout, learning the next pqs, and the comradery of the crew... there was nothing like it.
Fun on patrol? New Year's day, 1990, we were on patrol in Los Angeles Harbor with seven POBs, (no maximums in those days) and a whole roasted turkey with fixin's to be devoured by the crew. When we called into Group to activate, they could not believe we were able to get seven people to go out on patrol on New Year's day. Those sure were the fun ol' days. Where have they gone?
Originally posted by FL51D7: When we do SAR -- that is first response.
NACO's comments were clearly about emergency/disaster response. ICS is not used by the CG in simple SAR.
That is because we can not change the titles used in Maritime SAR like OSC to say ICS Operations Section Chief or Martime Branch Coordinator due to international agreements/treaties that pre-date ICS
Why would I cite such a requirement? It doesn't exist.
Your claim was that neither the CG nor the Aux was to blame for the ICS requirement since it originated above them. Since you now admit there is no such external source to cite, the blame for the overbroad ICS requirement falls back on the CG and the Aux.
Again, get your facts first. How about HSPD-5 which quotes under Tasking:
(18) The heads of Federal departments and agencies shall adopt the NIMS within their departments and agencies and shall provide support and assistance to the Secretary in the development and maintenance of the NIMS. All Federal departments and agencies will use the NIMS in their domestic incident management and emergency prevention, preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation activities, as well as those actions taken in support of State or local entities. The heads of Federal departments and agencies shall participate in the NRP, shall assist and support the Secretary in the development and maintenance of the NRP, and shall participate in and use domestic incident reporting systems and protocols established by the Secretary.
That is pretty clear, whether a first or secondary or tertiary responder if you are involved in prevention, preparedness, response, recovery, mitigation or assistance, you need to follow ICS. For example a facility on a safety zone around an oil spill, whether 1st day or any after (non emergency response), would be considered a single resource with a leader, i.e., coxswain (ICS term SURL or single unit resource leader). They would have to use ICS under HSPD-5.
Any other questions on who is requiring this?
So, your contention is that every single thing that people have to demonstrate to requal is useless and therefore it was useless to make them learn it in the first place?
That is pretty much true. Boat crews are about the only group that has to 'prove' they can do something outside of just performing the mission. All of the RBS quals are 'proved' by doing the minimum number of hours. The only thing Air Crews have to prove is that they can swim and get in a raft. The swim test is a disguised physical fitness test (that is often cheated on) and not any test of skills or knowledge.
So why is the BCQP unique - other then trying to justify an erroneous 24 year old policy?
Pick a side. You're complaining about doing some tasks but say that the whole process is worthless because we're not testing them all. Can't have it both ways.
Calm down. Take a deep breath and try to follow the discussion - especially since the remark of mine you are criticizing is pointing out the flaw in an earlier statement you made.
This was your first remark (which I highlighted when I quoted it).
Should we just assume that a coxswain who got qualified 10 years ago still knows how to do everything they are supposed to know, including those skills that they rarely use?
I responded:
Yes, since the Aux assumes that now. Go thru the coxswain task guide. The vast majority of the tasks are never tested in a requal. The Aux just assumes the coxswain knows how to do those things. They test towing - something less and less Auxies do every year.
See how that works. You are trying to justify the requal based on the fact coxswains need to prove they can still tow because it was among the things they had to do to qualfiy. I merely pointed out that the vast majority of tasks that coxswains must prove they know to qualify are never tested on again - ever. Which sort of destroys your arguement that coxswains need to prove towing ability - which most will never do. What makes the unused by most Auxies towing ability the skill to test for when the majority of the other skills are never tested - nor should they be. I also pointed out that crticial skills for the 'observe and report' mission are not part of the qualification set nor are they part of the requal process.
BTW - locally the USPS tows more in a year then the Aux does in a decade (or longer). They don't train on it, they don't practice it and they don't have to qualify on it.
BTW in another post you mention something close to if it (ICS) were important, there would be currency requirements. Well, I have news for you, there are. Not for all but for some at certain levels but not those at the deckplate. Most likely SURL and above will have to take ICS-305 Intermediate ICS Refresher Training is a USCG designed on-line refresher course for personnel expected to perform in an Incident Command Post and/or will be assigned to ICS supervisory positions and will review the concepts, principles, and protocols of the Incident Command duties and exercises intended to re-familiarize the student with ICS. This could mean SURLS.
