I heard that there was a Division in the 5NR that had nobody nominated for DCDR or for DVCDR. Did anyone here that or is that just scuttlebutt?
After being a VFC & FC for a total of four years and attending many Division meetings I can understand why nobody would want the job. All of my Division meetings were a total waste of time. I didn’t enjoy being out on a northeastern December night with howling winds outside as some blowhard DCR or DCAPT or heaven forbid the Commodore went on and on about some nonsense that had nothing to do with me.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: CoastDelta,
I have to agree. I've had this conversation with our newly elected DCPT. This individual complains that he has no time for patrols, ATON's work, VSC's or any of the flotilla's primary missions. Yet he has logged over 1,800 hours of Aux Admin (99) time this year. Busy as heck, but no productive goals filled. I wonder about the efficiency of this top heavy system.
Welcome to the "new" auxiliary. where "99" hours are used to justify it's existence. You've heard of grade inflation? It is the same thing. I for one, refuse to put in for "99" hours. To do so, IMHO, would lessen the value of primary mission hours.
Originally posted by Ancora: Welcome to the "new" auxiliary. where "99" hours are used to justify it's existence. You've heard of grade inflation? It is the same thing. I for one, refuse to put in for "99" hours. To do so, IMHO, would lessen the value of primary mission hours.
But back when there was no "99" report, dedicated members who wrote our textbooks and manuals, along with everyone who did data entry at every level, received no recognition whatsoever for the hours they expended to make the organization - and the Coast Guard - run better. That's why the "99" form was put into use, certainly not to lessen the importance of the hours spent on our primary missions. Perhaps when they approve a uniform badge bigger than the current National Staff badge to recognize those who perform AUXDATA entry you may have a creditable gripe.
And why are these issues a surprise? Who would expect that as you assume a greater leadership position you would not be changing your mission hours? This is a no brainer.
If you want to patrol then do not run for office greater than FC. Any higher than this (and even at the FC level as well now a days) your mission as leader is to see that others do the missions. You support those people now, you help them do the missions by providing them with the resources (within your capability) to get the mission accomplished.
Certainly, if your run for DCDR, you should know the mission is completely different in that role than it was when you were a deck plate member. Nothing wrong with being that. A lot to be said for that after having these roles myself. Sure, it is difficult to handle all the expected leadership/management issues and still maintain your quals, but if you didn't realize this going into it, maybe you didn't think it through very well.
The higher you go, the more difficult it is to maintain quals, in fact the expectations are different now. You have new "quals" to acquire/maintain leadership skill acquisition/development/maintenance. Needed and perhaps "un-needed" changes to the bureaucracy of the organization. These are givens. Anyone who runs for a higher office should realize this, if not, you are fooling yourself.
I do not mean to slight staff officers as the same applies to these roles as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if some divisions have problems filling leadership slots given how small many of them are. Cut the number of divisions in half and eliminate most of the staff positions (which don't do anything for the most part) and there will be plenty of people interested in filling the few spots left.
The Division is by far the least useful level of Aux administration. Sure, keep a division in any urban area that at least 3 flotillas in a fairly small area (on the theory that greater proximity increases the need, and usefulness, of cooperation between flotillas in regards to training and operations) , but everyplace else the minimum number of flotillas should be 10.
Personally, I think CG commanders at almost every level have it much easier than in CAP. You want to talk administrative burden? Auxies have it easy. Of course, thats the price CAP members pay for having corporate-owned vehicles and airplanes (and a much more elaborate program in general).
As far as I can tell Division Captains don't really have much responsibility for doing anything other than organizing a couple of meetings and a change of watch party.
Welcome to the "new" auxiliary. where "99" hours are used to justify it's existence.
I'm not sure how "new" this alleged "new" Auxiliary is. "99" hours had their proponents and opponents on the old Member Forum going back to 1999. It was on of the regularly occuring themes.
The problem is worse today when supposed 'real' 7030 missions aren't real. For example FSO-MSs can account for their staff hours on the 7030 while all other staff officers are stuck with the 7029. Various PA type administrative functions (web site building, publishing newsletters etc) now count as 7030 'real' missions while other staff administrative funcitons are still "99ed" on the 7029.
On the original point of the thread, the situation is not unique. It is fairly common for flotillas to have to brow beat and arm twist members into running for FC and VFC. Some flotillas only survive by retreading past FCs on a regular basis.
The problem extends above flotillas and divisions. A few national election cycles ago, GNat Aux had to beat the bushes to get someone to run for ARCO-P, one of the 3 third tier positions in the Aux and 2 hearbeats away from NACO. As the nomination deadline neared, no candidates stepped forward to run. In the last GNat cycle, ARCO-AE was 'elected' in an uncontested election.
Also a few election cycles ago in 1NR, a past DCO was conscripted to run for an uncontested RCO slot since no one wanted it.
But the 'no one will run' problem masks a deeper problem. The deeper problem is that many elections in the Aux are uncontested - it isn't the 'best man (or woman)' won. The only candidate won. Too often that sole candidate was brow-beaten into the job and is serving reluctantly and therefore often not very well or they are the vainglorious seeking ever more bling and stars, bars chickens and leaves.
Heck, there are countless public offices in which there is only one candidate, especially in small towns and rural counties, so this isn't something specific to the Aux, much less membership organizations in general.
The jobs aren't really very hard, just time and gasoline consuming. The norm seems to be uncontested candidacy. If a newby shows an interest in stepping up to a leadership position he/she is welcomed to the roster of future recyclable commanders.
With the current time being two years between membership and resignation, it is no wonder that our flotilla "staff officers" are all plug-ins who do not know down from up. IMHO, the flotilla/division concept is no longer viable due to the high turnover rate of the membership. If we were to merge all the "dead" flotillas in our AOR into one flotilla/division, we would be able to overcome this obstacle utilizing the experienced members who are in for the long run. Any thoughts out there?
We aren't having personnel problems around here. Still getting new and retaining old members although some of the younger folk have family based time constraints and work issues (like finding some). Sounds like you guys have a leadership problem. Does the 11SR bridge dump on the troops or is it just a lag in overall volunteerism? If the average newby lasts 2 years he/she isn't ever really part of any activity. When I joined I encountered a good-old-yacht-club mentality, solved that by volunteering at the local station until opportunities opened up at the flotilla level. Be creative, try mentoring the new folks.
If the average newby lasts 2 years he/she isn't ever really part of any activity.
The 2 year average, based on reports from GNat Aux, has been true for a long time. One report stated that with its 2 year turnover, the Aux basically turns over its entire membership every 10 years. That is a statistical projection not an actual one as there are members with more then 10 years of service.
It has been well known that there are two main exit points. The Aux loses most of its members in the first two years. The next exit point is the the 5 to 7 year period. There has never been a published explanation of why that second period exists. One unofficial explanation goes something like this:
1. Years 1 - 2: Wild enthusiasm phase(except for those who quickly quit).
2. Years 3 - 4. Beginning of disenchantment with non-existent (but promised) training or service opportunities. Possibly running into the 'bad end' of Aux politics. Growing sense that the member's problems are not unique to individual but endemic to the the organization.
3. Years 5-7. The Infamous AuxBO (Auxiliary Burn Out - a term that goes back to the 1960s and the Navigator which discussed it often back then) and the second massive 'exit stage left'.
If the Aux can retain the member past year 7 it can often retain them thru retirement (15 years) or longer.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: FL51D7,
Like most things in life, our current structure is a compromise.
We have trouble finding new FC/DVCDR because their predecessor is Term Limited. (And the high ratio of "Active Members" to Staff/Elected positions) Change the rules and we eliminate one problem only to find new ones take their place.
Meeting agenda's and the choice of what Staff positions to fill or not, likewise is a compromise. The choice between spending some time/discussion/passing information about a program with only a few members present and interested versus ommiting that subject and the implication for those members.
Enduring poor Elected Leadership from time to time is perhaps a price of not having a potentially bad leader in office for twenty straight years. Most though are at least well intentioned. And while perhaps droning on about some minor topic, at least showed enough interest to try and present something they thought was either important or of interest to those assembled.
It never fails to amuse me when a "plug-in" is put in a staff position and the FC then complains when the "plug-in" does not carry out the duties of the position. We now have an FSO-OPs that is not even crew qualified. However, things are looking up in this AOR, sort of. I sent out notices of a Safety Patrol to 18 crew people covering three divisions and got two crewmembers. Not bad, considering the lack of support for Surface OPs in this AOR.
Originally posted by Ancora: It never fails to amuse me when a "plug-in" is put in a staff position and the FC then complains when the "plug-in" does not carry out the duties of the position. We now have an FSO-OPs that is not even crew qualified. However, things are looking up in this AOR, sort of. I sent out notices of a Safety Patrol to 18 crew people covering three divisions and got two crewmembers. Not bad, considering the lack of support for Surface OPs in this AOR.
Had you sent them up here there would have been a swarm of responders, we have been blessed with few opportunities to get minimum hours under way in this division. Makes one ponder the notion of requalifying this year, it does.
I can’t speak about all of 5NR, but the part I dealt with most of the time was useless. I am sure there are good people doing what they can, and those people helped out when I needed them. And then there were those that where a waste of time dealing with.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: CoastDelta,
I know what you mean about requalifying. We do no towing in this AOR, yet we have to practise towing. Our last tow was in 1996, and that is with a 12 month boating season in this AOR.
