Source: Department of Marine Safety (Prevention) July 2007 Report to OpCom
quote:
Department Renaming
In order to mirror the naming structure of Coast Guard Active Duty Commands it was proposed to rename the Operations Department to the Response Department with the designator “R” and the Marine Safety Department to the Prevention Department with the designator “P.” This would necessitate changing the designator for the Personnel Services Department, currently using the “P” designator. An appropriate new designator for that department could be “H” for Human Resources. This has the benefit of matching the designator for the Coast Guard department with similar functions.
quote:
Impact
The proposal to rename the Departments, if approved, would result in limited or no financial impact upon the Auxiliary. After discussion with [snipped to protect the innocent], the “cost” for AUXDATA renaming would be an Auxiliarist’s time to enter the new names. Websites and other documents would need to be updated.
Renaming of the Operations Department to the Response Department and the Marine Safety Department to the Prevention Department will have some impacts at all levels. Staff officer designations will need to be changed at the Flotilla, Division and District levels. It is recommended that the Operations Staff Officers be renamed Staff Officers for Response Operations with the designator RO (e.g. FSO-RO), and that Communications (CM) staff officers would be re-designated Telecommunications (TC). It is further recommended the Staff Officers for Marine Safety be renamed Staff Officers for Prevention with the designator PN (e.g. FSO-PN).
STATUS: Pending approval
There are costs that aren't mentioned above.
1. The cost to update the AuxMan, OpsPolMan, ATON Manual and the like manuals - just to reflect an unneeded and unnecessary officer title change. Since this cost would be mostly be borne by the CG - the Aux probably couldn't care less about it.
2. The cost incurred by members to reprint their business cards and stationary - at the member's expense of course.
3. The opportunity cost of changing web sites and publication mastheads of course does not have to be borne by the proposer or Nat Aux - it all falls on the Bilge Mice. Further - given the dirth of web sites being updated around the Aux now - there is a high likelyhood that many would not be updated, some for years. Why put the whole organization thru this unneeded and unnecessary title change just to satisfy some Grandees need to have a bullet point for an end-of-tour award?
And for icing on the cake - there is one more proposed re-naming:
quote:
Renaming of Aids to Navigation (AN) Staff officers to Navigation Services (NS)
It is requested that the current Aids to Navigation (AN) title for staff officers be changed to Navigation Services (NS) to better reflect the expanded opportunities for Auxiliary involvement in the Coast Guard Navigation Services program area. Activities included by the Coast Guard under Navigation Services include _____.
Impact:
The proposal to rename the Staff Officers, if approved, would result in limited or no financial impact upon the Auxiliary. After discussion with [snipped to protect the innocent], the “cost” for AUXDATA renaming would be an Auxiliarist’s time to enter the new names. Websites and other documents would need to be updated.
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval
It is recommended that this be effective 01 January 2008
And with all this 'change for the sake of change', "M" refuses to make the one change that would bring it into conformity with the CG. And that change is to drop its desparate hold on "O" and truely embrace its role as a partner with RBS in the Prevention Directorate. No where in "M"s report will you find a recognition that "M" is not all of Prevention - it will not recognize it is supposed to be firmly in bed with the ugly red haired step-child RBS.
"M", which should be embracing the Ugly Red Haired Step Child, went so far as to try and get a form changed so its (commercial) Vessel Examiners did not use the same form as the Ugly Red Haired Step Child's (recreational) Vessel Examiners. From page 6:
quote:
In a recent AUXDATA report sent to SLOs, the number of Fishing Vessel Examiners and Fishing Vessel Exams were listed under Recreational Boating Safety rather than Operations. These are not recreational boats and the exams are not the equivalent of a VSC. This continued linking of commercial vessel exams and recreational vessel exams perpetuates the erroneous impression that a VE can perform exams on commercial vessels.
A new Commercial Vessel Examination form was proposed to remove the commercial vessels from the Recreational Boat (VSC) Exam form to eliminate the confusion caused and help reduce the number of exams being conducted by unqualified Auxiliarists. This proposal was declined by I Department personnel.
First of all it is CG policy that if a district has no UPVE program then a (recreational) VE can perform a UPVE but they cannot perform other commercial exams.
Second the arguement is bogus. With the exception noted above, the system should have blocked the entry of commercial exams by recreational VEs - just as it blocks a non-VE from submitting exams. The rest could be handled by communicating who can and cannot perform what exams (as if the examiners didn't know already).
At least "I" stopped this attempt at rearranging the deck chairs - probably because it would have given them another form (and hence more work) to maintain.
