|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
We have met the enemy and he is us. Pogo |
This thread will bring you the news that SitRep could not. We start with the proposals that NExComm was going to submit to the full board and NACO pulled back when faced with the Revolt of The DCOs. The very first proposal to report on had been proposed a year earlier by then NACO Gene. The DCOs of that year also revolted and Gene had to pull it. After it was pulled, the then NACOS (NAtional Chief Of Staff) who this proposal is meant to benefit supposedly called an emergency training session of the then VCOs and lobbied for its future passage. Those VCOs are now the DCOs and they refused to go along this year. I'll follow with even more discucssion later but two things to keep in mind. The discussion document that went along with the proposal contains this sentence.:
We know that statement is a blatant lie. Before NACON 2007 the Proceedings of the USNI published an article about the Aux. That article is discussed in another thread on this board. In that article, NACO Steve is quoted as stating he wants to do away with the election system. He wanted to 'nudge' the Aux along that route. This proposal isn't a nudge - it is a shove. Second, when you read the proposal and the justification pay partiular attention to how little the person really needs to have accomplished and who approves the waiver to the rules for a district elected position. Compare that to the increased requirements that will be put on lower level officer holder if they seek higher office - that to be detailed in the posts about the second proposal. A hint it isn't the DCO or the IPDCO who approves the waiver - nor is it the district DirAux. Make no mistake about it this proposal isn't some generic alternative to getting into high level office. It is a specific proposal to allow one high placed staffer and Best Bud of two NACOs to run for district office. ... next the proposal. |
||
|
|
We have met the enemy and he is us. Pogo |
... continued
This is the actual proposal that NExCom put up to the National Board. It was pulled by NACO so it would not go on the record has having been defeated.
Question: If the waiver is for the District Rear Commodore position why is it approved by the ARCO and NACO? You would think that maybe it would have to be approved to someone in the district who actually might know the candidate - like the DCO, IPDCO, VCO, RCO and/or DirAux or any combination of the above. Make no mistake about it - the approval process is in place to make sure that only those acceptable to the Nat leadership (Best Buds and GOBS) may short circuit the election process. To be continued (the Discussion Document) ..... |
|||
|
|
We have met the enemy and he is us. Pogo |
... continued The Discussion Document
All emphasis in original except the last one (dealing with not changing electoral system).
It will be a few days before I post the second proposal. You might want to digest and comment on this one first. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Hi FL:
I haven't read the proposal yet so I'm not sure what it says. But I like the concept of the NACO/NAVCO and DCO level folks being elected from a larger pool of eligibility. There must, of course be some substantial minimum requirements, but I like the concept. If the current system for NAVCO requires DCO then ARCO then NAVCO, that' far too narrow a field IMO. Here's why I feel that way. I've seen what happens to folks who run and succeed through that eligibility chain. By the time they become eligible for NAVCO they are far removed from the heart of the Auxiliary. The good candidates have suffered many slings and arrows and are exhausted and cynical. The senior positions are seen more as a rest and reward than a chance to dig deep and champion progressive management. There is another personality type however who thrives in our current eligibility chain. That's the ego driven people. It's not about moving up to further the Auxliary, it's all driven by the insatiable desire to further themselves. With rare exceptions, we get both types to the detriment of the Auxiliary as a whole. I'd like to see some way to get popular, fresh, innovative and enthusiastic leaders into a position where they could make a difference. But maybe that's not what the proposal was about <G>. Gives me an excuse to spout off anyway. |
|||
|
|
We have met the enemy and he is us. Pogo |
Something else to ponder. If the proposal was to truely open up the pool then why was it restricted to staffers at the DSO level and up and only for running for RCO.
Several years ago there was a proposal to allow staff officers who had served as an Division Staff Officer (SO) or higher for 5 or more years to run for DCP/VCP without ever having served as FC. That was soundly defeated. Also why are the covered staff only authorized to run for RCO and not lower level elected officer like DCP or VCP? Are those lower level positons beneath the ability of the long-term high-level staff? While purportedly opening up the applicant pool it only does so for a limited number of staffers and for only 1 elected position. I think in the larger world this would be considered 'favored son' legislation - others might consider it a form of corruption and/or nepotism. For those not familiar with Aux staff structure - the proposal as written only covers the following staff positions. District Staff Officer (DSO), District Directorate Officer (DDO)/Chief (new name), National Division Chief (DVC), National Department Chief (DC), NACO Aides (N-A),National Directorate Commodore (NADCO) and National Chief of Staff (NACOS). Since the Aux trumpets that the flotilla is the foundation of the Aux, I am surprised that any proposal for short-circuiting the election process does not require that the erstwhile candidate at least served as an FC at some point. No matter what your staff experience - if you don't have an FCship under your belt then you have no clue what leadership in the Aux is like - and you have no business being in a position where you think you can dictate to the FCs. But the again - a requirement to serve as FC had to be dropped from the proposal. The specific member that the proposal was written for had never even been elected Auxiliary dog catcher and certainly not an FC. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Without thinking too deeply about all the possible ramifications of this type of proposal, I would agree with you. I think any candidate for higher elected office should have to have served at least one successful FCship. And perhaps also, at least one appointed office. FC is the core of our organization and any leader in a position to decide on major policy should have that experience under their belt. But I think, in terms of offices held criteria, that FC should suffice. Beyond FC things start to get twisted by the political machinations and that increases as one progresses up the chain. I want folks who would say "Why can't we do that?" and who think outside of the very rigid Auxiliary box. I also agree that the NACO or any senior leader cadre should not have any ultimate approval on a candidate who fulfils the other criteria. That would be disastrous. That would exacerbate our current situation and totally prevent any innovation that challenged the existing leadership's point of view. Furthermore, I think any proposal of this magnitude should be presented for vote, to the membership as a whole. With equal for and against arguments made (as in a State voter's pamplet). That could be done electronically. I do not think it should be left to the DCOs to decide as they all have a big dog in the hunt. |
|||
|
Basic Training |
[quote]I think any candidate for higher elected office should have to have served at least one successful FCship. And perhaps also, at least one appointed office. FC is the core of our organization and any leader in a position to decide on major policy should have that experience under their belt.
I echo that! |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
I agree with Lifeboat on the fact that anyone should only advance after the experience of a FSO and FC slot. How can you drive the boat if you don't know where the motor is?
|
|||
|
|
We have met the enemy and he is us. Pogo |
If you need further proof that this proposal is "favorite son/daughter" legislation consider this requirement from the proposal:
Now go read "RCO ‘charm school’ polishes leadership skills" in the Spring 2003 Navigator (page 30).
Now ask yourself: 1. How does a high ranking staffer even get to that course which is 'designed specifically ... for Rear Commodores? No run-of-the-mill staff officer would have been able to even get into that course - since they wouldn't meet the prereq. Further evidence this is a piece of Best Bud legislation diguised as a general proposal. 2. Who but a very well connected staffer is going to get funded for a joy ride to Petaluma? Since the staffer would not have met the prereq, it is highly doubtful that the CG would have funded the staffer to attend. That leaves the funding up to the individual (unlikely) or thru political connections in the Aux with funding coming from the Aux. As you ponder that, keep in mind the otherwise light weight requirements for this little bit of chain jumping for a 'favorite son/daughter/Bet Bud'. That will be in sharp contrast to the added burdens they wanted to place on lower level officers seeking higher office. And in contrast to the claimed assertion of this proposal that it is to open up the candidate pool - the other proposal you will see shortly, contracts the candiate pool by restricting what offices a DCP can run for. It is obvious that the Grandees are still in mortal terror of a repeat of the Como Paddick insurgency in 8ER a few years ago. They are hell bent on ever preventing it from happening again. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Regards the AMLOC. That would be a big problem. Added to FL's concerns is the challenge to an innovative staffer who wants to try for direct election to senior office.
If that innovative thinking has "stirred the pot" and antagonized the status-quo at lower levels (which it inevitably does because our locked in concrete policies promote locked in concrete leadership), then how would such a candidate ever get sign-off to attend AMLOC, even if the prereqs were modified? Attendance at these things always involves going hat in hand to several levels of leadership and begging them to approve your request. So we would then filter out the very type of members we need to lead us well. I think that we could switch it around and make acceptance of the successfully elected position conditional upon completion of the next AMLOC. Or more likely, AMLOC at the next opportunity is expected. I have questioned several who have attended the AMLOC course about the "leadership" content. They all relate that there is very little and that it is primarily about administration. The Auxiliary still thinks good administration is the same as good leadership. Ability to insure good administration through good choices of staff, is a small component of good leadership. |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
Maybe what we need to do is require leaders to spend time as FC between levels of elected offices. Such as a past DCP required to spend 1 or 2 years as FC again before being allowed to run for RCO. With additional terms as FC required between district and national elected office.
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
I think you should be able to run for the office 2 levels above yours. For example, an FC could run for Division Captain or the level above that. This would ensure that if you've got an absoultely outstanding candidate that they've got a chance to "skip a step", but not too far.
|
|||
|
|
We have met the enemy and he is us. Pogo |
RiverAux,
Interesting proposal. If I understand it correctly here is how it works out. The > is the offices that the current officer can run for now. The + is the one over that you recommend they should be eligible for. Member > VFC/FC (added) VFC > FC FC > VCP/DCP + RCO VCP > DCP + RCO DCP > RCO/VCO/DCO + ARCO RCO > VCO/DCO + ARCO VCO > DCO + ARCO DCO are currently eligible to run for all positions above DCO. So your proposal has the benefit of increasing the eligibility pool at the BTW - you idea isn't two far-fetched. Long ago and far away in the Aux, a two term VFC could run for VCP or DCP without stopping off at FC. edited per next post Now keep the above chart in mind when we discuss the 2nd proposal in a few days. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Well, I think I would start my proposal at the FC level. I think you should at least be charge at the local level before moving up.
|
|||
|
Member |
I kind of liked the proposal that I understood to mean that you had to serve a term as FC between each advancement in office above FC. Nothing like keeping your hand in at the grass roots level.
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Sort of unrealistic though and would hamper leadership at the FC level somewhat. Keep in mind that there are people in those FC slots now or who could potentially serve as FC, but if someone who wants to move up HAS to be FC again then they would have to be bumped or the guy who wants to get ahead might possibily have to wait quite a while before a slot opens up where he could be FC again.
On the other hand, if you weren't all that great an FC, you would be unlikely to be elected again, which would keep you down where you belong rather than moving up to a level where you become a real disaster. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Sounds like a person who would really put a lot into the position (that he considers beneath him) when he's only doing it to get that high level national position that he really "deserves". OTOH, that last paragraph certainly rings true. In most bureacracies you will eventually rise to your level of incompetence. your proposal might put a stop to that. |
|||
|
|
We have met the enemy and he is us. Pogo |
I forgot to mention that the prior Discussion Document submitted with the proposal was (internally documented) by NIPCO Gene. So this is at least his second attempt to get this private legislation passed.
Now onward to the second proposal that had to be pulled from the table. The discussion document for this one was written by (internally documented) NAVCO Nick. It was Nick who is the author of the infamous justification for the Legion of Demerit Award that the Board passed a few years ago, when Nick was ARCO-AE. The justification was "the Auxiliary doesn't have one." First this is from the National Recommendation Form:
The Discussion Document follows. As you read it bear in mind who can run for what offices now and how this proposal blocks officers from running for offices they are currently eligible for. And note very carefully - the elected Vice at any level has to attend training in order to qualify for election as the unit leader. In essence, under this scheme once you elect the Vice you have also elected them as the follow on unit leader - since no one else would (under ordinary circumstances) be qualified for the office. Nor could they be challenged from the floor since a challenger would have to already have completed the course in order to be a legitimate candidate. The first proposal claimed that it was proposed to open up the candidate pool. This proposal clearly shows the intent is to restrict the candidate pool. You also have to wonder why a candiate for RCO - from the Bilge - would have to complete courses as VFC and VCP and wind election as FC and DCP in order to qualify for RCO but some well placed, well greased staffer only has to complete 1 course and win no elections in order to qualify for the same office. Any way on to the proposal. |
|||
|
|
We have met the enemy and he is us. Pogo |
Status: as noted Steve had to pull these from the table before they got voted down. They have set up a committee composed of the ARCO and 2 or 3 DCOs from each area to discuss these proposals for re-submission. Note - there is an assumption on the part of the High Grandees that they will get their way in some shape or form - without the membership getting any input into how its future leaders are elected and what the requirements will be. |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Military.com Forums | ||
| Servlet | eve1da047 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Front Door" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
