I hear on this board and elsewhere in the Auxiliary, the concept that discussion, disagreement and dissent is somehow disloyal, disruptive and anti-Aux/anti-military.

This position always seems astoundingly simplistic and is in my opinon, an effective way to cripple any organization. But I was brought up in a time when "Question authority, think for yourself" was my mantra and I understand that some of our members think questioning a senior in a para-military organization is heretical.

What do you think?

The best mangers surround themselves with diverse opinions. A culture of encouraging different opinions and strategies is the only way to adapt, make progress and be innovative. Staying with the status quo does not work for very long. For example, President Nixon surrounded himself with "yes" men. Kennedy had more diverse staff opinions.

I have seen both kinds of managers in the Auxiliary: those who encourage debate and those who are threatened by it.

Two views on the subject:

quote:

We are here to protect democracy, not practice it!!

Gene Hackman as Capt. Frank Ramsey in Crimson Tide. Also the ill conceived idea that gave the young USA the Alien and Sedition Act.

quote:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the Blood of Patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the USA and elected in part do to reaction against the Alien & Sedition Act.

"Loyal opposition is the concept that one can be opposed to the actions of the government or ruling party of the day without being opposed to the constitution of the political system."


Many who post here, fit the above. Many programs work at the Flotilla level, which is all truth is where the Auxiliary really works. Most of the time when you get above that level, things just start going bad. I am not oposed to operations. What concerns me is the mandate for RBS. If we do not perform that mission, then, I beleive, the Aux will disappear. Many may not agree, but there is fact to back that up.

There a place for discussion and dissent. However, when a forum exhibits an almost entirely negative and dissatisfied view -- without provided real solution alternatives, or at least identifying what IS working right and well, then such a forum is very unhealthy and serves only to tear down the organization.

No one has stepped up to my challenge to identify the programs or areas in the Auxiliary that are running well, are "fair", well managed -- or particular leaders doing an outstanding job. Still waiting...

When such a discussion forum's most out-spoken critics are no longer part of the organization, it has no credibility. One can only wonder why someone who left the organization voluntarily, or was dis-enrolled (due to failure to comply with policies or regulations), would want to have any further association with such organization. (it's what would be referred to as a caution flag on a baseline psych evaluation) If they happen to be a current member of a different organization and choose this forum to air their sour grapes -- again, it has no credibility and serves no positive value.

As far as leadership goes, again I say the memberhsip is responsible for who they elected. If things work so well at the Flotilla level (more operational planning and mid-level management), and the leaders of the Flotilla are elected by the membership -- but then when those same people are elected to Division and District leadership (more strategic planning and executive administration), they somehow become "bad" doesn't make sense to me. Their roles and responsibilities are different, but you are trying to maintain the Flotilla perspective on what they do -- it doesn't fit.

What may work at the Flotilla level -- in terms of management -- will not work at the Division and Disctrict, or National levels. I believe that most people who serve in an elected positions (and appointed positions) geniunely desire to do the job to the best of their ability (I know I have). Unless someone can show me that a vast conspiracy exists in Auxiliary leadership at the higher levels to make the general memberhsip miserable, I believe that we can only strive to elect the individuals best suited to serve and support those who are presently serving in a leadership capacity(even when we disagree -- and there are healthy and appropriate venues to discuss those disagreements with the leadership). To do so does not make you a "yes" man.

Still not satisfied? Run for office, get elected, and make a difference -- but don't take the easy route and sit back at the computer desk banging out complaints under the cover of "discussion and dissent" when no workable solution alternatives are brought to the table. Expending so much energy in this forum process will have zero impact on any change -- it only serves to provide a "feel good" to the person typing the text. Such an example is my attempt to look for the positive aspects about all that is the Auxilairy in hopes that it will make some think -- and take a different approach. It won't affect the majority here, thus it only makes me feel a little better to try.

First of all, in response to your challenge, the boat crew program in my AOR is working exceptionally well. We are training new people, accepting new facilities, and have a very smoothly operating POMS. A second area that seems to be working well is the Air Program in your AOR, at least for you. I understand that it works pretty well in New York and New Jersey, too. The Hawkeye Augmentation program seems to work pretty well, too; at least I see auxiliarists getting commendations for what has to be the most mind-numbing boring work imaginable. The Auxiliary Range Coach program works pretty well, too. In all, everything seems to be working fairly well with a few exceptions. And discussing those exceptions is not sour grapes--the fox walked away, and so far no one here has walked away.

quote:

There a place for discussion and dissent. However, when a forum exhibits an almost entirely negative and dissatisfied view -- without provided real solution alternatives, or at least identifying what IS working right and well, then such a forum is very unhealthy and serves only to tear down the organization.

No one has stepped up to my challenge to identify the programs or areas in the Auxiliary that are running well, are "fair", well managed -- or particular leaders doing an outstanding job. Still waiting...

When such a discussion forum's most out-spoken critics are no longer part of the organization, it has no credibility. One can only wonder why someone who left the organization voluntarily, or was dis-enrolled (due to failure to comply with policies or regulations), would want to have any further association with such organization. (it's what would be referred to as a caution flag on a baseline psych evaluation) If they happen to be a current member of a different organization and choose this forum to air their sour grapes -- again, it has no credibility and serves no positive value.

On your first item. Hypothetically (because I cannot speak for the members of the Auxiliary) what if the majority of the members were dissatisfied in one form or another? In your view, I take it they should just shut up and go with the program, even if they don't agree?

And why is the opinion of a former member who put in his full measure of effort and achievement not credible? Isn't it true that challenges are often much clearer from the outside looking in? Isn't that why we hire outside consultants to review, study and report?

One can wonder why "several someones" here, who put in a lot of time and heart, left the organization voluntarily but continue to comment on this forum. I think it's great. I'm glad they're here. To me it is an affirmation that underlying all our concerns, there is an organization (or at least the concept of an organization) that could be immeasurably great.

We're I King of the Auxiliary, I would be reaching out to these folks to come back and help us be that great organization. They are scary dudes, that's for sure. They question everything and vocally bridle at perceived injustice. If ignored, they will got to the mat with their concern. I want folks like that in my Auxiliary.

Finally, there are folks and programs in the Auxiliary that are absolutely magnificent. Their dedication and determination to do all they can do is without peer in the volunteer community.

And FWIW there are some participants here, who have put in enormous hours, achieved many qualifications, been recognized for their service and achievements many times and are still members.

WOW fly&scuba,

Do you actually live in such a small narrow box that everything is positive or negative, no exceptions??

And only those that meet yer narrow, strict requirements are eligible to opine or comment on this organization??

WOW(again), case, point, and match of one of the EXACT , majority reasons why; when the PSI came along, I "just said no" and was dis-enrolled. And I did it in EXACT accordance with the polocies and regulations in effect at the time regarding the PSI.

I recieved the PSQ, filled it out, checked the "NO" box, and sent it to my div. Within 24 hours of getting it in the mail.

There was NO "policy" that said "I had to do it"(PSI), there was NO "regulation" that said " I had to do it"(PSI). I was sent a form and given choices, both with consequences, and I made my choice. Plain & simple, end of discussion.

And as far as all the "negativity" on here about the AUX.

Welp, I came to this AUX forum and another(now defunct) AUX forum when I 1st joined the AUX and started ta do stuff W/my FLOT. Go to meetings, try to interact with fellow mbrs, try to get some stuff going, etc, etc, etc.

And in my flot , and div, I was met with alot of what we refer to on hear as "GOB". Circlin the power click wagons, "I've been in the AUX for 20 years", "we've never done it this way" (even though "this way" was the way them policies and regs you spew about say its supposed to be done), blah, blah, blah.

I come on these forums and started posting questions, doing "this is whats going on, what(if anything) can I do to try and fix it", "has anybody else experienced this", stuff like that.

And, lo & behold, what do I find out??

The AUX is pretty much one big "GOB" where the situations and experiences I was having pretty much extended thru-out the Org.

One big huge fraternal organization where if you don't act and think exactly like the rest of us your wrong,and where traits such as initiative, responsibility , and LEADERSHIP are replaced and circumvented by a number.

Number of years you've paid dues, number of years you've been a member, number of pretty ribbons you have on your chest, and most importantly, number of fellow members that are your "friends" and will circle the wagons and "have your back" should ona the young upstarts wanna try to change anything for the better or actually wanna try and run the organization like them polocies and regulations say its supposed to be run.

ie- My FC at the time had NO IDEA what in the hell " FLOTILLA STANDING RULES" was till I showed it to him in the manual. Flotilla had no protocol, no standing procedures, not one word committed to paper. He had been in the AUX for over 15 years and was on his 2nd "tour" as FC.

Whats worse is I bet ya donuts to dollars they still ain't got any FLOTILLA STANDING RULES cause the same 5 or 6 people that have been there running the show for the last 20 years are still there doing the exact same thing. And remember, running the show don't necessarily mean holding an "elected" office.

And yer not gonna start that "I'm in the AUX to serve my country" crap are ye?? And us that got dis-enrolled over the PSI are about as close to being communist subversives as ya can be today, are ye???

I didn't join the AUX to serve my country, already "BTDT" (twice), and I'm a disabled veteran ta boot. There are many Vets in the AUX.

I joined to "keep my hand in it", thats it. Its essentially what I've done my whole life, working on boats, and now that I was retired due to disability I figured the AUX and its small boat program was the place to be able to continue to do what I was good at and what I loved. I joined for neither the politics nor the drama. And there was too much of them and not enough of the other, the substance.

So I left, or more correctly I allowed the AUX to push me out.

And being "psychologically evaluated" because I still care, think, or opine about something I'm no longer a part of??

Heck, I spent 18 months in SE Asia in the early 70s, part of a naval detachment on the ground in the jungle with some pretty serious boys from the Army Rangers, Marine Recon, and Navy Seal units doing stuff ya don't talk about in polite company. And I still care, think, or opine about that all the time. And I ain't been near it in over 30 years, I must be a *****in wacko, nutcase(at least according to your standards)-JRC

quote:

One can only wonder why someone who left the organization voluntarily, or was dis-enrolled (due to failure to comply with policies or regulations), would want to have any further association with such organization. (it's what would be referred to as a caution flag on a baseline psych evaluation)

flyandscuba:
Personally, I like the discussion on ideas for AUXAIR. And you seem to have an interesting perspective. But I notice you occasionally use personal attacks to make a point (such as the above quote). FWIW I think its counter-productive.

quote:

Originally posted by ENGELJ:
I hear on this board and elsewhere in the Auxiliary, the concept that discussion, disagreement and dissent is somehow disloyal, disruptive and anti-Aux/anti-military.

This position always seems astoundingly simplistic and is in my opinon, an effective way to cripple any organization. But I was brought up in a time when "Question authority, think for yourself" was my mantra and I understand that some of our members think questioning a senior in a para-military organization is heretical.

What do you think?

Water is a great thing and without it we would die. I wasn't thinking that during Katrina, nor do most people during a flood. We need to point out problems, and question authority, and we need to do it without making it sound like the AUX should have never been created in the first place.

Originally posted by FL51D7:

quote:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the Blood of Patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

Also the favorite quote of our first homegrown terrorist who blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and the pre-school children in it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ENGELJ:
But I was brought up in a time when "Question authority, think for yourself" was my mantra and I understand that some of our members think questioning a senior in a para-military organization is heretical.
/QUOTE]

Questioning something in private or in a group discussion is one thing, but for some reason many of our members don't seem to have any tact when they do decide to "dissent"...

Personally, the only problems I've had in the AUX were with the yachties who don't like the fact that I joined primarily to do Marine Safety work with the MSO. I don't have any issues with them doing surface ops, and I'll probably do boat crew one of these days. I have the RBS quals as well as IT b/c I feel that RBS is a major part of the AUX mission, and I want to help out the unit when it comes time for the year end awards as well.

What's funny is that 3 of the top 5 members in both VSC's/PV's in our division are Marine Safety types who augment at the MSO.

Bosco,

You are correct -- it is counter productive.

quote:

I hear on this board and elsewhere in the Auxiliary, the concept that discussion, disagreement and dissent is somehow disloyal, disruptive and anti-Aux/anti-military.

I am going through Crew Training. This topic recalls two items from TCT.

• That TCT can "provide direction for continuous improvement to team performance."
• Assertiveness is one of the standards of TCT.

The Boat Crew Seamanship Manual says assertiveness is

quote:

actively participating in problem-solving, by stating and maintaining a position until convinced by the facts that your podsition is wrong."

The book also says the coxswain should:

quote:

. . . encourage input and feedback"

and

quote:

". . . treat questions and concerns with respect."

I like these concepts and standards enough to also use them as a VFC.

quote:

Also the favorite quote of our first homegrown terrorist who blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and the pre-school children in it.

And when I first heard about it, my first thought was I wonder what short-ducked, egotistical megalomanic pulled what idiotic move to pi$$ him off so bad?

quote:

Originally posted by Skyray:

quote:

Also the favorite quote of our first homegrown terrorist who blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and the pre-school children in it.

And when I first heard about it, my first thought was I wonder what short-ducked, egotistical megalomanic pulled what idiotic move to pi$$ him off so bad?

The FBI was the short-ducked, egotistical megalomanic (in his opinion) that pi$$ed him off so bad. He agreed that dissent was a good thing, he dissented with the way the FBI handled WACO, and saw himself as an insurgent.

Your first thought was who pi$$ed him off?? who cares? My first thought was that he could have kept the children out of it.

I'm not sure there would be much interest in a board that did nothing but parrot positive messages about the auxiliary. Even then, if someone started a discussion about how to make a great program even better others would interpret it as being negative since it implies that what we have now isn't perfect.

The first step towards solving a problem is recognizing that you have one. These boards are places where possible problems can be discussed.

And, every once in a while someone will ask a simple question about Aux policy or procedure and are usually provided with a rational (and correct) answer.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Successes and Challenges
The A Department has continued to stay busy through the summer, with boating season in high gear, and related PA activity. With this increased tempo of activity, staffing issues continue to be our greatest challenge in carrying out our strategic and tactical plans.
Some of our successes since N-Train include the following:
• We assisted the P Department in revising Joint the Auxiliary web site, which have been substantially updated to reflect the lessons earned from the generations study undertaken by COMO Gates. While the web site is not a completely finished product, we believe this site will have more appeal than the existing page.
• The Kellogg’s/Wal-Mart combined campaign to promote life jacket wear, initially rolled out in March 2007, continued to garner exposure for us. A separate web page has been created to track the hits coming from this campaign (see www.lifejacket.auxpa.org ), although results were lower than expected. More products were displayed in July.
• We have been continuing to work with the V Department to promote the 60th anniversary of the VSC program. We have distributed several news releases prompting the VSC program, and shot some PSAs, with BoatU.S. founder Richard Schwartz.
• Our online courses, as well as the AUX-12 C School, continue to be in high demand. So far we have completed classes in Jacksonville, Cape Cod (a road show for D1), and Alameda. One more course will be held in FY 2007.
• We have continued to get our messages out to the media, and have enjoyed a good deal of exposure, particular on radio. Also, I was quoted several dozen times as one of the spokespersons for the Joint Information Center (JIC) related to the Whale rescue Operations in Northern California. We are also working closely with the CoastGuardChannel.com to increase our exposure on their web site.
Some of the bigger challenges we face include the following:
• A continuing, ongoing challenge is finding staff that are highly motivated, talented, and possess a sense of urgency is a constraining factor to our success.
• Nowhere has the shortage of motivated, talented personnel been more apparent than with our web resources personnel, and we desperately need to find more talent in this area if we are to be on the cutting edge.
More detailed tactics, with projected completion dates, are enclosed.
Respectfully submitted by,

Chief- Department of Public Affairs
A Department NACON 2007 OPCOM Report
DETAILED TACTICAL PLANS BY DIVISION
The following is a brief summary of our tactical plans (by Division and Branch) as of 1 AUG 07:
Imagery/Multimedia Division
• Photo Branch: Compile/update database of Photo Corps members in order to easily determine locations, skills, equipment, etc. Use targeted recruiting with local PA officers to add new, experienced members in those areas. Communicate with local PA officers and show what members and equipment are available in their areas to utilize. (ONGOING)
• Audio Branch: Updating our current inventory of PSAs, and in various lengths and formats. Make it easier for the “deck plate” to find and download the material from the website. Make our services available to local units to help them create customized PSAs for their AOR. (ONGOING). Work with a Tiger team to complete audio interviews for the new recruiting website (Third Quarter 2007 – dependent upon getting the technology to do phone interviews).
• Graphics Branch: Continue to build up a Graphics Corps, similar in structure to the Photo Corps (members are not on National Staff, but serve on an ad hoc basis). Review all other PA brochures for current themes. (ONGOING)
• Video Branch: Produce “b-roll” for the 50 largest media markets in the country, and make this footage available online to both the media and our members either via the CGVI database, or adding to our online collection on the CHDIRAUX serve (on a space available basis). Make ourselves available to other departments to produce quality training videos that can augment our existing training materials and PowerPoint presentations. (ONGOING). Work with ADM Allen to produce some safe boating/recruiting videos. (By N-TRAIN 2008).
Community Outreach Division
• Speakers Bureau Branch: Modify the training and requirement to join, so that more of our members will be eligible to participate. Finish redesigning the Speakers Bureau website so that it will serve as one stop portal to the public (to request speakers) and to our members (Third Quarter 2007).
• Flags and Ceremonies Branch: Finalize the Flags and Ceremonies Guide and obtain approval from CGHQ (Third Quarter 2007). Develop and publish an accompanying training video on the Flags and Ceremonies program (Forth Quarter 2007)
• Veterans Projects Branch: Continue to train Auxiliarists on how to capture Veterans History. Develop a training video on how to conduct these interviews (Forth Quarter 2007).
• National Organizations Branch: Establish closer relations with organizations such as AAA and AARP, as well as boating industry groups (NMMA, regional Marine Dealers Associations) (Forth Quarter 2007).
2
A Department NACON 2007 OPCOM Report
• Youth Outreach: Develop programs to reach various youth groups about boating safety, and plant the seeds for future membership in the USCGAUX (Forth Quarter 2007).
• Coastie Branch: Update and expand the Coastie web site, and help develop and ALAUX policy on the use of Coastie (Third Quarter 2007).
Special Projects Division
• Continue to promote the use of life jackets, during and beyond NSBW (ONGOING).
• Continue to promote submissions for PA, PB contests sponsored by the A Department (Second Quarter 2007).
• Revise/update the Public Affairs Guide and PB Guide, in conjunction with the Internal Communications Division (by N-TRAIN 2008).
• Promote ISAR 2007 to be held in Toronto (Third Quarter 2007).
Internal Communications
• Professional Development: Continue to Develop Public Affairs Specialist Qualification Program in concert and consultation with Active Duty Public Affairs personnel. Design and implement a public affairs mentoring program (ONGOING).
• Training: Review, revise and consider additions to online training offerings. Continue offering Aux 12 C Schools with three fully funded sessions annually and District-funded “Road Shows” as requested/funded by Districts (ONGOING).
• AUX eNews: Stepping up the frequency to a weekly distribution. Provide a platform for other departments to get news about their programs directly to the deck plate level (Forth Quarter 2007).
External Communications
• Create at least 1 news release per week (off-season), and 2 or more news release (boating season) (ONGOING).
• Take the new Media Contact List and break it down by State and/or region for field use (ONGOING).
Web Services
• Overall goals: Create a website that is appealing to visitors and sells the Aux to the public. Design the website to make it easier to maintain and more stable. Rotate fresh information and stories to entertain the readers. Don’t rely on one vendor tools to design the website. Code must be portable. Webmasters must work together as a team (ONGOING).
• Technical Goals: Combine our resources into one logical website. Transfer all data to the new server (including the visual image library) by the end of the third
3
A Department NACON 2007 OPCOM Report
quarter of 2007. Clean-up all pages to use one standard design template (with some exceptions) (by the end of the Third Quarter 2007).
• News Room: Revamp and simplify the news room, and make it easier for members of the media, as well as Auxiliarists to located news releases previously distributed (Third Quarter 2007).
• Web Polling Software: Work with the P Department to conduct the annual member survey (Third Quarter 2007). Develop other applications using this software for other departments as needed/requested, and for use on the visitor page of the Auxiliary website (i.e., boating safety quiz of the week) (ONGOING).

quote:

Originally posted by ENGELJ:
I hear on this board and elsewhere in the Auxiliary, the concept that discussion, disagreement and dissent is somehow disloyal, disruptive and anti-Aux/anti-military.

Can anyone say CAP?

ENGELJ, I'm sure there are people like that in the Coast Guard Auxiliary. There are control freaks everywhere. But it can't be as bad as CAP.