Also getting reports from FSOs saying they have nothing to report is horrible

The system does not enforce that so in a pinch the FSO IS can enter time.

Also getting reports from FSOs saying they have nothing to report is horrible

It may not be their fault - they may legitimately have nothing to report. Every Jan the Aux has its national training conference (N-Train). Every Aug/Sep it has its National Conference (NACON). You would think for the amount of money that the Aux and CG sends personnel to those things that important news would come out of them. Now go to each National Department web pages. Go back 4 years to the beginning of the NACO Gene's reign. Try and discover anything of real value that was worth reporting to the membership over the last 4 years. Other then Gene's new personal award - the Legion of Demerit - and some restructuring stuff there hasn't been any real new program announcements in 4 years.

Now go to your district web site. Go to each department there. If your DSOs even post anything - how old is it.

I posted some info about D7 a while back. Few of the DSOs had done any posts in the last 2 years other then their "glad to have the job" post. For those DSOs who returned to their post, their last post was 4 years ago.

So if National isn't reporting anything new and the Districts aren't reporting anything new then how do you expect the FSOs to have anything to report? It is kinda dumb for them to report the flotilla's numbers since those are easily obtainable thru AuxInfo and it would be a sheer waste of everyones time for each FSO to report 'the numbers' at each meeting.

FL, just because there is nothing new on the District web site, doesn't mean that the DSO hasn't done, or reported doing, anything. Most District newsletters feature columns from most of the DSOs.

Really though, what sort of "news" do you want them to be reporting on? Most Aux programs are very well established and have been functioning for years with almost all the work being done at the Flotilla level.

What more does the DSO put on the web page or newsletter other than: 1. Doing a great job guys, 2. Need more participation guys, 3. Really need to send in those mission reports guys.

Really though, what sort of "news" do you want them to be reporting on?

Just some things that have been 'in the wind' for several years and no one has kept the membership up-to-date.

The Infamous Aux National Repeater Project. It appears that 1SR may have had a successful implemention - so where is the cost studies, Lessons Learned, Operating and Procedures Manuals (so others don't have to re-invent the wheel) etc.

The Infamous Aux HF Network - same comments as the ones above apply here.

About 3 years ago the Aux ballyhooed some multi-million dollar donation the Aux got from someone to implement a Nation wide alerting system. 3 years and 3 hurricane seasons later - still no word. I think this may be being prototyped in 1SR as we write and read but who knows for sure and why is it taking so long?

Where is the long rumored and oft delayed Technical Reference Manual/Facility Inspection Guide Book for the VSCs?

The ludicrious Aux restructing project - aka The Left Hand Doesn't Know What the Right Hand is Doing and Why Project.

I'm sure other can come up with other "announced and then never heard from again" projects.

Wait - I just thought of another one. Do you have any idea of where the Loaner PFDs are that were supposed to be given to every flotilla? It is very near boating season in the hard water districts - isn't it about time someone clued the membership in as to where the PFDs are and when they will be delivered?

And if there are really are anywhere near the 1,000 reported changes in the new AuxMan then something changed somewhere and someone had better start telling the membership.

Most Aux programs are very well established

The two big 'glory' programs - Air and BCQP have been and remain in a state of flux for several years now. Yet no one has presented the 'grand plan' to the membership. Probably because there is no Grand Plan but each new regime and office holder has to tinker with what were successful programs - just so they could claim they did something, which they usually did - their tinkering lead to a fall off in qualified members and facilities.

quote:

The two big 'glory' programs - Air and BCQP have been and remain in a state of flux for several years now. Yet no one has presented the 'grand plan' to the membership.

I haven't seen any significant flux. There have been some minor changes regarding requalification, but thats about it. No big deal. What, are you expecting them to make universe altering changes or something?

By the way, doesn't the revised aircrew training program document released in November 2005 count as a sort of "grand plan"?

I haven't seen any significant flux. There have been some minor changes regarding requalification, but thats about it. No big deal.

You have got to be one of the few people who think that the change from a 5 year to a 3 year re-cert cycle isn't a big deal. And that is without accounting for the changes in the process itself. Things like a new mini-version of the original shore side check-off.

And the elimination of the annual towing evolutions is considered by many to be a 'big deal'. Some think it just might be the best thing since sliced bread since it was a waste of time. Others think it is the ultimate dumbing down of the program. Either way - neither side dismisses it as 'no big thing'.

revised aircrew training program document released in November 2005 count as a sort of "grand plan"?

Training documents aren't plans - they don't tell you where the program is going only what you need to do to get qualified. And the stuff changed after that anyway. And will probably change again before the ink is dry on whatever manual they come out with to keep up with the last change. For example, I don't think the new aircraft maintainence requirement was in the 2005 document and that had a dramatic (mostly negitive) impact on the program.

I posted some info about D7 a while back. Few of the DSOs had done any posts in the last 2 years other then their "glad to have the job" post.

OK to be fair - I re-did that exercise. Especially since this is an erection year in D7 and all of the erected officers in D7 are do for re-erection. So we start with them. The date is the last post on that officer's page - it may or may not be from them.

The Grand Poobah of D7 the DCO - 3/2007. An N-Train and a NACON have gone by and he has nothing to report. You do have to wonder if there is nothing to report from the 2 National conferences and the 2 district conferences that also took place why do you fund him to go.

The VCO did better - 3/2008.

the RCOs are pathetic.

RCO-N 10/2007
RCO-W 1/2005 and it was written by his predecessor
RCO-E 11/2007

The IPDCO who is also ARCO-AE never wrote anything in the last 2 years.

Now drop down to the appointed chiefs.

D-CR (Response) 2/2207
D-CP (Prevention) 3/2007
D-CL (Logistics) 2/2007

The 3 posts above are your basic first "I just took this job and I'm saying Hi!" posts.

Below them.

Response Group
AN 3/2008
Aviation 6/2006 written by predecessor
CM 6/2006 written by predecessor
OP 2/2008

Prevention
MS 10/2007
MT 3/2008
PV 5/2008
PE 10/2007
SL (state liaison) 8/2007
VE 12/2006 and written by the then DCO

Logistics
CS 10/2007 written by predecessor
IS 2/2007
PS 4/2008
PA 2/2008
PB 2/2008

The "Independents"
Conf Chair 2/2008
Grants 3/2008
Historian - no posts at all
Webmaster (not the DSO-CS) 2/2008
DSO-FN 2/2005
DSO-LP 5/2005
DSO-MA 2/2008
CRC 5/2003 written by predecessor
PDCPA 1/2006 written by predecessor

And the Rusty Chain wonders why the members rely on each other and this site for info. Well the latter is a lot more current then the info posted on the D7 site - the largest district in the Aux.

quote:

Originally posted by RiverAux:

quote:

The two big 'glory' programs - Air and BCQP have been and remain in a state of flux for several years now. Yet no one has presented the 'grand plan' to the membership.

I haven't seen any significant flux. There have been some minor changes regarding requalification, but thats about it. No big deal. What, are you expecting them to make universe altering changes or something?

By the way, doesn't the revised aircrew training program document released in November 2005 count as a sort of "grand plan"?

Tis is truly pathetic. I liked your "Rusty Chain" Analogy take a look at my profile picture you may enjoy it Its an original

Folks
As of now I am personally embroiled in the process. So much so my Aux buddies have shunned me. What I have had to do is violate the Chain of Leadership to get my complaints heard. I did this when I recognized that the lower links on the chain was using it to block the upward motion of my complaints. I have put the COL on notice that in order to protect myself I would do it. Also if any charges get filed against me. They will be labeled retaliatory in nature.
Once this process gets started you have to stick with it and make no deals. As volunteers we are entitled to excellent leadership and the right to complain if we don't get it.

My suggestion Bruce, is don’t get too spun up about it. Take deep breaths and start an informal process before you commit yourself to a paper-trail, burning-bridges. Assuming you have already tried the COL route, do not be concerned about “violating” the chain of leadership. But do so with a phone call, so you can get unofficial advice that is not on paper. Call your Division Captain, call your district commodore and talk to them. They are just members like you and the fancy title does not put them beyond reach at all.

I am using this forum to gather anecdotal evidence that will find its way into this Member’s view of the Auxiliary. This report will go where ever necessary to get a fair hearing. For now my strategy is my own but "Blessed be the whistle blowers for it is they that prevent the unjust from inheriting the earth"

If your goal is to die on your sword, then carry on. It’s disappointing at least, but in the end you will not make much difference to the ponderous behemoth that is the Auxiliary leadership. We plow along into catastrophe with eyes wide shut.

Really, what is your goal? If it is to prove the Auxiliary is screwed up and that the COL doesn’t work, I would stipulate that as true, right out of the box. I think it is a misconception that there are evil people in the COL who will block you because they don’t like you. I wish it were so, then you could point at that and sat, “there’s the reason”. But usually we are just too tired and too discouraged and too frightened, to start the whole “let’s fix this for Bruce” process. So we just obfuscate and delay until it goes away. As FL has discovered, if you really go to the mat and spin-up everyone involved, you lose.

Question for today Phony Hours
 Catch all (99)bucket is used indiscriminately more then ½ the hours recorded

Not sure what you mean but by far, the majority of 99 hours go unreported. By a vast number, probably 50% at least. So if some exaggerate, good for them. Remember, all time spent thinking, surfing, reading, cleaning uniforms, polishing brass, all of that, is reportable on 99. The test is, “would I be doing this is I was not in the Aux?” If the answer is no, then it’s reportable.

 Awards given for hours not results

Leaving out the awards that are specifically designated for hours, I see no problem here either. We used to award rather high non-operational awards to folks who had spent multiple years and a gazillion hours, especially those who did not report them. We were always looking for a way to honor those who worked tirelessly in the shadows and we would root them out and estimate their hours.

 Numbers of safety checks seem to be also padded Heard about pass/fail counting

I think we have that under control now. We still do so few VE’s overall that it is embarrassing.

 Maybe fraudulent practice to obtain higher budget allocation or awards

Not sure what you mean. Higher budgets from whom? Awards are our “paycheck” and cost us about a buck to say thank you.

Any input would be appreciated...
Bruce Cohen

I liked your "Rusty Chain" Analogy take a look at my profile picture you may enjoy

Very good! You will enjoy our sometimes references to "Ignore the man behind the curtain".

BTW and fair warning: Tilitng at windmills is generally not good if you hope to enjoy a long Aux career. BTDT and have the t-shirt.

 Maybe fraudulent practice to obtain higher budget allocation or awards

Not sure what you mean. Higher budgets from whom?

I think he means CG money. It has been insinuated in the past by Auxie PTBs that at least in some cases, higher mission numbers could lead to more cash. That isn't true in the RBS area, the Poor Ugly Red-haired Step-Child has to make do as best he can from non-CG sources. But supposedly MS and "O" missions might benefit from higher, even if faked, reporting.

We plow along into catastrophe with eyes wide shut.

That line should become a forum classic. A perfect statement of those at the helm of the Auxtanic.

As FL has discovered, if you really go to the mat and spin-up everyone involved, you lose.

True but is it better to go along to get along and let corruption flourish? Besides in my case, it eventually became evident that the 'fix was in' from the very beginning. We only found out at the end of the process that the DCP had helped the FC write a fraudulent report at the very beginning - a disenrollable offense on both of their parts. Once that was done they knew, well before we did, that it was them or us. They won since they are the Rusty and Corrupt Chain. I now have almost 2,000 hours a year back that I used to give the Aux. And those hours never included my fun time here with you guys - so I keep doing that and have a lot of time for other things.

quote:

True but is it better to go along to get along and let corruption flourish? Besides in my case, it eventually became evident that the 'fix was in' from the very beginning.

Better to go along? I think only the individual member can answer that. I am always torn by "what's the right thing to do?" If I tear at the Auxiliary do I accomplish anything? Do I make it worse? If I disenfranchise myself from participation in the leadership, how can I change anything? Do I abandon my less self-righteous shipmates by tilting at windmills?

I guess that comes down to what is the honorable thing to do and again, I think that comes from inside of each individual and is difficult to judge from outside. I think it perfectly valid to say that I didn't sign up for this crap and I am out of here. A lot of our members do that.

Regards the "fix is in"... I really think that's true for everyone who embarks on a serious campaign to correct a grievous wrong as you did. I think that the hand has already been played and that in the end, no matter how compelling or obvious your case, if it gores too many oxes, your toast. They just cannot validate your position because to do so would invalidate their own.

Goodness - a lot of metaphores there <G>.

What I do notice is that those who seem to enjoy their Auxiliary experience the most are those who focus on their personal passion at the local level and let all the other upper-echelon noise pass over them. They carefully avoid being drawn into leadership where it's a no-win game. I don't think that's me though <G>.

quote:

What I do notice is that those who seem to enjoy their Auxiliary experience the most are those who focus on their personal passion at the local level and let all the other upper-echelon noise pass over them.

A recepie for a happy experience in most organizations. Leadership in any organization involves politics with all the good and bad that is involved.

Say FL, instead of using a bogus measurement tool for how much work the DSOs are doing (i.e., when their page on the D7 web site was updated), why not just go snooping in AuxInfo and see how many hours they put in and compare that to the average Auxie?

By the way, has anyone else noticed that incompetence is not spelled correctly in the title to this thread: Pot, meet kettle...

quote:

Originally posted by RiverAux:
Say FL, instead of using a bogus measurement tool for how much work the DSOs are doing (i.e., when their page on the D7 web site was updated), why not just go snooping in AuxInfo and see how many hours they put in and compare that to the average Auxie?

By the way, has anyone else noticed that incompetence is not spelled correctly in the title to this thread: Pot, meet kettle...

Watch out.. the spelling police have arrived! They always arrive when someone doesn't have a good argument to make for their side.

instead of using a bogus measurement tool for how much work the DSOs are doing

Once again you are way off the mark. One of the key aspects of the job of an elected leader and high-level appointed one is communication. Unless you missed it, this is supposed to be the eAux and has been since 1999. So looking at whether or not an officer has posted any news (communications) on their web page is a valid measure of job performance. And at least in D7 (I suspect it is common all over the Aux) they fell down on the job across the board.

And the news shouldn't be that hard for them. There are 2 Nat Confernces and at least in D7, 2 District Conferences a year. Many DSOs and almost all the erected orifices get funded to attend some, if not all of them. The news is 'free' all they have to do is format it and send it to the webmaster who does the posting. I know the webmaster personally. He will post anything they send him.

Alternatively, if the officers aren't going to post any current info then take the web pages down and save a whole lot of disk space that could be used for something else.

go snooping in AuxInfo

Since when is accessing a publicly available source of info snooping? You do it yourself sometimes.

see how many hours they put in and compare that to the average Auxie?

Why bother, we both know how that would turn out - especially if you knock out the 99 - admin time. Why do you think NACOs Gene and Steve both tried to pass a resolution that would exempt an elected officer from maintaining a qualification? As if 8 hours underway (now 12), 2 hours teaching, 4 hours assisting, 4 PVs or 5 VEs were too much to ask an erected orifice to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Forewatch:

quote:

Originally posted by RiverAux:
Say FL, instead of using a bogus measurement tool for how much work the DSOs are doing (i.e., when their page on the D7 web site was updated), why not just go snooping in AuxInfo and see how many hours they put in and compare that to the average Auxie?

By the way, has anyone else noticed that incompetence is not spelled correctly in the title to this thread: Pot, meet kettle...

Watch out.. the spelling police have arrived! They always arrive when someone doesn't have a good argument to make for their side.

Watch out.. the nothing useful to add police have arrived! They always arrive when someone doesn't have a good argument to make for their side.

--M
(I love copy and paste...)

quote:

Originally posted by 7555925:

quote:

Originally posted by Forewatch:

quote:

Originally posted by RiverAux:
Say FL, instead of using a bogus measurement tool for how much work the DSOs are doing (i.e., when their page on the D7 web site was updated), why not just go snooping in AuxInfo and see how many hours they put in and compare that to the average Auxie?

By the way, has anyone else noticed that incompetence is not spelled correctly in the title to this thread: Pot, meet kettle...

Watch out.. the spelling police have arrived! They always arrive when someone doesn't have a good argument to make for their side.

Watch out.. the nothing useful to add police have arrived! They always arrive when someone doesn't have a good argument to make for their side.

--M
(I love copy and paste...)

Yeah, because you're not original enough for a good come-back. Why don't you try correcting my spelling?

quote:

So looking at whether or not an officer has posted any news (communications) on their web page is a valid measure of job performance.

No, it is only a valid measure of two things:
1. Whether anything new has happened in the program at the District level that has not already been reported by other means (email, District newsletter, the national e-newsletter, Navigator, national program newsletters, etc.)
2. Whether or not the webmaster has posted material sent to them.