|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Coast Guard Discussions Coast Guard Auxiliary Icompetence and Corruption in the Aux|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Member |
Uh, I think you have to be "in" the garden in order to pull weeds... What you are able to do -- is stand outside the garden -- on the other side of the white picket fence -- and point at what appear to be weeds inside the garden from your exterior perspective. As with real gardens and what appear to be real weeds - sometimes you have to get very close and actually touch the plant to see that it has, in actuality -- the ability to produce a beautiful flower...  But yes, you are good at pointing to things inside the garden -- from the outside.  All over a set of finger prints. Myself, I wish you would reconsider and reapply. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
As a taxpayer, I'm "in the garden". Someone in England is not "in the garden" because they don't pay US taxes. However, I'm not "in the dirt" with you, but I can still "get to the root of the problem" and I can still pull weeds.  I'll reapply when the fingerprints go away and all that is checked are the SS numbers. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Pulling weeds would imply "making a change". In order to make a change, you could vote regarding organizational decisions through the leadership structure, possibly serve in a position of elected leadership -- or at least least participate in the organization's programs. Sadly, your last act at making a change was to allow your self to be voluntarily disenrolled.
A nagging neighbor can gripe about the weeds and the condition of your yard -- but it will be the property owner (the active member) who goes and pulls the weeds, mows the lawn, applies fertilizer, and most importantly -- is able to take pride in the results of their work. Alas, we can differ on this point of perspective as well. But you can't actively make any changes as long as you are not part of the organization....only gripe in forums such as this in hopes that some other member takes the actions necessary to make the changes you desire. I suppose you can view that as pulling weeds "by proxy". |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
That's absolutely not true. After my disenrollment for refusing to be a sheep and have my liberties violated ala PSI.. I wrote to a number of elected officials in congress and the senate, as well as the head poo-pah of DHS and the Commandant of the Coast Guard. Isn't it funny that not too long afterwards, the bend over PSIs were lightened up? Now, whether my letters had anything to do with it, I don't know for sure.. but I would like to think that they did cause some conversation about them. As a tax paying citizen in the Garden of the United States, of which the Coast Guard Auxiliary is one patch of land in my garden, I can most definately make a difference. And.. P.S. I was not "voluntarily disenrolled".. I was disenrolled under protest. Remember, I sent in my check to pay my dues. |
|||
|
|
Member |
So, it appears there is only one real "weed" in the garden -- the fingerprints. It's nice to know that is the only "problem" preventing you from making the Auxiliary worthy again.
Have you looked at the latest 7001 (01/08 revision) form? Would you be willing to complete it if the finger print requirement did not exist -- or is this form still too invasive? Just curious. http://forms.cgaux.org/archive/a7001f.pdf |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
No, I had not seen that form. It's a huge improvement over what I had been asked to sign when I was disenrolled for "non payment of dues" even though I sent my dues in. If you got rid of page 5, I would be OK with it. However, you are required to sign a "United States of America Authorization for Release of Information." It's none of their frikken business investigating "my activities from schools, residential management agents, employers, and retail business establishments." Plus, you have given them carte blanche because it also says, "or other sources of information." That means they can look at your investments, talk to your neighbor, look at your medical records ... anything. All they need is to check for a criminal record. PERIOD. That can be done with a simple social security number check-- as my employer did, as the police did when I was applying to become a youth mentor on a tall ship, and as my bank did when I applied for a car loan. This is so over the top, it isn't funny... particularly when the vast majority of Auxies patrol in citizen boats, teach boating safety classes, and stand behind PA booths. If they got rid of page 5 and got rid of the fingerprinting, I'd sign back up in a flash. |
|||
|
Member |
America!!! We need Page 5 and Fingerprints. Help keep Forewatch OUT of the Auxiliary. Really if you 8itch so much while your OUT, imagine how much you 8itched while you were in. I am willing to bet that your Flotilla is GLAD your gone.
 |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Now, be a good boy and go to your time-out room! |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
First off - Who is 16889342? There is no bio when you check to see his/her public info. For those who are sensitive to giving up their liberty in the name of security, I am surprised they would answer questions posed by an unknown.
Second - the USCGAUX is neither a game nor a volunteer organization. You, the member, cannot make up the rules as you cruise along just as you cannot make substitutions to the uniform because you don't want to spend the money or you feel that it doesn't matter. The AUX is an organization chartered by Congress which happens to be staffed by volunteers who, by the way, agree to abide by the governing policies as established by the Commandant of the USCG. Now, all of the above being said, when a member finds something in the governing policies that he or she cannot live with - goodbye, 'nuff said. If a member finds another member, regardless of position, not living up to the "intent" of Respect, Honor and Devotion to Duty, that member has a duty to see to it that those erroneous practices cease ASAP. Finally, yes, Flotilla Commander is the hardest, and most important, job in the Auxiliary and should be filled only by members who are well-trained across many areas and who realize the responsibilities of the office. Respectfully, Paul A. Dowty Flotilla Commander 10-06 5SR |
|||
|
Basic Training |
Well said Paul,
Thank you |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
So your feeling is that Auxiliarists are all sheep, and must ignore anything that is wrong with the organization, rather than trying to make a positive impact. That's just... sad. And you're a flotilla commander.. that makes it even worse. You said the Auxiliary isn't a volunteer organization? No? Well then it owes me a few years in paychecks! |
|||
|
|
Member |
You GO GIRL.. |
|||
|
We have met the enemy and he is us. Pogo |
If a member finds another member, regardless of position, not living up to the "intent" of Respect, Honor and Devotion to Duty, that member has a duty to see to it that those erroneous practices cease ASAP.
Which oddly enough brings us back to the subject matter of this thread. Since another member and myself did just that. Our original complaint, which did not ask for punishment, just the stopping of illegal covert night ops was against the FSO-MT (now VCP), the then VFC (later FC and now a DSO) and the FSO-OP of the flotilla. Rather then just stopping the practice the FC launched an investigation and issued a fraudulent cover-up report for the malfactors and sanctioned the reporting members. We wouldn't have that and got the sanction rescinded in writing. Then we went after the FC for the fraudulent report (he didn't know we had witness statements to the illegal patrols). Then the reporting membes got suspended and eventually disenrolled when they wouldn't knuckle under to the cover-ups. Yes boys and girls there were several. The reporting membes didn't find out for months that the DCP was also involved in the production of the first fraudulent report. It was for that reason he could not allow the original fraudulent report complaint to go forward and had to do everything he could to get the reporting members disenrolled. In case you didn't know, filing fraudulent reports is a disenrollable offense - we had the FC and DCP by the short-and-curlies and the Aux and the CG covered it up. Then there is the proven suppression of evidence by the DirAux, a CG CDR, on a related matter to the original patrols. There was a cover-up of that by his superior, a CG Captain, and the tale of woe goes on and on. But that is enough since the full saga was recounted here about a year ago - as it happened. A little update for those of you who were around for the original. Two out of the three members of the Gang of Three (2 of the 3 'covert operators' and the FC) are no longer members of the flotilla. The Aux has its cover story in place for both of them but basically the remaining members of the flotilla 'ran them out of town' as personas non gratia. The 3rd member is still a member of the flotilla but hasn't been seen in months. And despite the claims that the original reporting members were causing people to leave the flotilla - it grew ever year they were members. At the conclusion of the Reign of Terror of the Gang of 3 the flotilla membership dropped by at least 20 members. Before my own travials, I assisted about 8 other Auxies in their own battles with the corrupt |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
|
|||
|
|
We have met the enemy and he is us. Pogo |
True, but the Aux stacks the deck against a Bilge Mouse by not providing any assistance to the accussed - while acting as judje, jury and executioner for the accusors. The main investigator/judge in both of the fraudulent investigations was a member that the District newsletter had already identified as the DCOs 'hatchet man' (my words but clearly implied by the District newsletter article).
While the case was still alive, one of the Gang of 3 was appointed a DSO and the "Hatchet Man" who was still active in the investigation and the target of several complaints was appointed one of her ADSOs. And I wasn't totally alone. I had several advisors, more then one of whom was a lawyer and a few were and are posters here. The Aux would probably be surprised at the number of people the MembersB sent copies of the paperwork to. Once the chain locks up there isn't really much you can do about it. The District Commander always has the out to disenroll for 'good order and discipline' without ever specifying a formal reason or specifics. What is really interesting is what the advisory group thinks is the act that got us disenrolled. There was never any agreement on it. Although accussing a CG CDR, CAPT or RADM (or better yet - all 3) of corruption in a public forum certainly would do it - most think it was an earlier act and the CG just couldn't figure out how to drop the axe. Regarding the CG side, most think it has to do with the filing of the FOIA Request. If not that - writing an appeal to CGHQ of the failure to follow the FOIA and deliver the info was supposedly it. That puts not only the station CO but CG district officers in the hot seat. A much stronger case might be made for when the MembersB wrote to a Congressman with the dirty story of the FOIA violations and he sprung the info loose. that certainly did not endear the MembersB to any CG officer and the MembersB were told that damaged a few CG officers careers and although the officers were dead wrong by the law - someone had to pay. (Can you hear those Rings A-Knocking?) Also filing formal complaints against a DirAux with both his superior (a CG Captain), ChDirAux and NACO probably didn't help matters either - even if it was proven that evidence was suppressed from formal investigations. Once it was discovered, very late in the process, that the DCP had been involved in the production of the first fraudulent report - most of the advisors thought the MembersB were doomed from the beginning. Once that was established the FC and DCP both would have to be disenrolled. That also would highlight the lies under oath of the remaining members of the Gang of 3 and they would have to go. Finally, the two fraudulent investigations run by the DCO's Hatchet Man would lead to his disenrollment. So the Aux and CG thought it was sacrificing 2 to save 5. However the Reign of Terror of the Gang of Three lead to even more resignations so the toll is a lot higher the other way. And what was once the largest, fastest growing and active flotilla is becoming a mere shadow of what it was in its glory days. As I wrote - this is all old hat to most of the long time readers. Do you want to hear some more tales of incompetence and corruption from the Naked Auxiliary - this is only one of them. I was hoping EngelJ would regale us with his own tale. If I remember the outcome of that one - it cost the Aux 2 facilities, one of which was the largest in its division. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I too am still in the Auxiliary, still active, and often participate on this board. I try to couch my comments in non-attack mode and try to show "the other side of the argument" as best I can. I try to offer solutions or alternatives (all of which are completely ignored both formally through the chain and by any lurkers on the board that could make a difference). I have worked as high as Division Chief within the National Auxiliary organization and have held many positions at Flotilla and Division level. I am an active coxswain with two Auxiliary facilities and until recently, an Auxiliary mobile radio. I often express my concerns and my frustration with inept, incompetent or incomprehensible Auxiliary leadership behavior and policies. There is no place else to do so, but here. Which i itself is a great indicator of the fear of exposure our leadership carries. Our "chain of leadership and communication" is utterly broken. It is dependent upon the good-will and willingness for your up-chain members to carry your suggestions, insights, complaints and even formal protests upwards through the chain. That happens so rarely as to be phenomenal when it does work. If a member has the temerity and courage to "push" an issue, they are inevitable sanctioned, censored and sometimes sacked, not because of the correctness of the issue, but because of the dangerous precedent of exposing the incompetence of those above. That’s the prime directive in the Auxiliary leadership. CYA. If you do not step up, you will not be exposed to criticism and hence you will prosper and be promoted on. The Auxiliary leadership needs a top-down overhaul. A giant enema. Most of the leadership works in an environment of fear. CYA is the way to the top if that's your goal. In a true volunteer organization like the Auxiliary, folks vote with their feet. When they see the dishonor, the pettiness, the gross incompetence they vote with their feet. And they do. |
|||
|
Member |
Been threatened before an I'm still here in the AUX. Would love to see the top down sweep but I don't think I'll live that long!! |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
We now have an assigned CG owned patrol boat in my division but prior to this happening I looked into how to get one. Getting a surplus boat is tough! The surplus property is handled by the GSA and it is offered up to other state and local government agencies first. If anything is left the AUX can get it if you catch it before it goes up for sale. Not to mention that anything that everybody else passes on is probably junk. Since the CG is now able to assign a boat for AUX use a much better way would be to put together a request and forward it to sector. Include info on number of coxswains, patrol hours, etc. Good luck |
|||
|
Basic Training |
To answer Boatmantes, I have a secret identity!
I'm Batman!!! (Don't tell anyone.) I apologize, I used to have a bio but then I do not know hat happened, I will rebuild it so people have a better idea of ehat I am about. In reference to night patrols - wasn't that something that was done for a while under CG sanction after 911? I don't know but I thought I had heard that was the case. Just curious. |
|||
|
