Membership Requirement Vote

[admin]

Since there isn’t any overriding policy regarding the inclusion of non-anchor wearing Chiefs participating in a Chief’s Call, and response to that issue on this board has been split, we have decided to put it to a vote.



You will be voting “yes” or “no” on the inclusion of active duty and reserve warrant and commissioned officers that were (are) Chiefs, and retired Chiefs and Warrant/Commissioned officers that were (are) Chiefs.



The first to reach 150 votes will be considered the majority decision.



We encourage you to add comments to your vote to help persuade others to your side of the debate.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

This is your opportunity to show that "Once a Chief, Always a Chief" isn't just lip service. Everyone should vote. Let's get to 150 yes votes before Dennis retires so we don't miss his wisdom for even one moment.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

I vote to keep it posting privileges for Anchor wearing, active duty (or reservists on active duty) Chief's only. There are several reasons for this.

How will you verify that a Warrant Officer or Commissioned Officer wore the Anchors at some point in their career? The only way I know of is to take their word for it (not good, leaves to much room for even one dishonest person to come on board), or to check their personnel records.

There is no way to verifies that a retired Chief or Warrant Officer or Commissioned Officer wore the Anchors at some point in their career. The only way I know of is to take their word for it (not good, leaves to much room for even one dishonest person to come on board.)

The only exception I would allow is that if someone who is currently posting retires or becomes a Warrant or Commissioned Officer.

Raymond

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

My argument remains unchanged. A Chief's Call is for current Chiefs only. If you are an officer, your input is required in the wardroom. Conflicted agendas/loyalties between the goat locker and wardroom will serve no one.

Retirees are going to be difficult to identify as Chiefs and are less inclined to temper their comments in a balanced discussion.

I voted no.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Ray, anyone who wore an anchor and wanted to post here, would have the documentation from when they wore anchors. The ones that are still servicing can be verified through Direct Access. The Board Members who verify membership could easily do that. If the others weren't willing to do it, I certainly would. Remeber that people with administrative authority can also remove posting priveledges and delete any offensive post made by some imposter.
My guess would be that the retirees that wanted to post here still have some afilliation with their local Mess. They probably still know at least one active duty Chief that could sponsor them. If we, as Chiefs, can't take the word of that active duty Chief................where are we ?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I agree that there would need to be a verification process. The easiest way seems to be that an active duty chief would sponsor them and verify their status as a chief. It doesn't seem that complicated to me & I would certaintly verify and sponsor those retirees in my area. This could be tricky in some areas of the country, but as a whole it should work

I think there are many benefits to this, we all gain perspectives from those that have gone before us and we should welcome them here...if that's their desire.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Sorry Dennis, I posted after you sent your's.
I'll give you that those Os that once wore anchors need to speak up in the wardroom, but I don't think that means that their same voice is useless here.
I think that the more imput that we get from as many different aspects of the active CG, the better we are all served.

I think that you're selling retirees short. We may encounter some hot heads, but we have the means to eliminate those that don't want to conduct themselves in a civilized manner.

Big shock, I voted yes.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Unfortunately I cannot say what I am about to say without sounding negative, but I live in the 21st century. Being one that wants to verify everything before signing on the proverbial dotted line, I would want to see proof before allowing someone who says they were a Chief to post, otherwise you open yourself up to people like that BANCCTI guy over on Fred's Place that caused nothing but hate and discontent and did not contribute anything positive to the discussions.

Raymond

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Raymond, we have to verify membership, right now. The people with the admin ability check to make sure that people applying for membership did so from a global address. I've deleted applications that came from personal accounts. And I'm only one of the people checking. We have already had posts removed that ADMIN saw as having the potential to offend. We shouldn't have the problems seen in Fred's Place because we don't allow people to hide behind a screen name. And I would vote to remove anyone who uses the forum to spew their negative, offensive outlook on everything. This should still be a non-attributive environment where Chiefs could openly discuss their concerns, and solicite imput from their peers.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

The problem will arise, though, because the offending/irresponsible comments will have already been made and read by many before we catch them. Active duty/reserve Chiefs that make these kind of posts will probably be getting a call from someone in their chain-of-command, and they know that. Aside from being removed from further posting, there isn't any other punitive measures that a retiree needs to worry about.

They can "nuke" the board and then disappear forever without any significant repercussions.

My disclaimer- I know that the vast majority of retiree's aren't like this. But, there are a couple out there that will do just as I've suggested.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I would like to think that someone using their own name, who was sponsored by, or had another Chief, vouch for them, would be beyond such childish things. Maybe I'm naive ? I've never spent any time in any other forum so I didn't have the first hand experiences with these people like the rest of you. I would rather think that someone would want to join this forum to assist others, rather than just rant about their glory days.

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

A. This isn't an actual Chiefs Mess. What a Chief says in here....can be read by anyone. This is a great forum because there is no anonymity. Can someone get in here...sure there are ways. Somebody can catch my computer unlocked, "nuke" the board as you say, and get away with it.

And if they do, so what. Don't feed the trolls. Admin removes their posting priveleges, and we carry on.

B. The Chiefs who went before us (retired, W's and O's) have just as much (or more) experience than we do. Let them post.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Shawn,
Just curious- would you exclude them from an actual Chief's Call?

[MKC Tony Balcer]

A. This isn't an actual Chiefs Mess. What a Chief says in here....can be read by anyone. This is a great forum because there is no anonymity. Can someone get in here...sure there are ways. Somebody can catch my computer unlocked, "nuke" the board as you say, and get away with it.

And if they do, so what. Don't feed the trolls. Admin removes their posting priveleges, and we carry on.

B. The Chiefs who went before us (retired, W's and O's) have just as much (or more) experience than we do. Let them post.
BMCS V.

I agree with you. The more the merrier! It's hard enough to get participation in the Mess. I know some guys that are crossing over to the other side on 1 JUN, but I think they will still have a lot to contribute.
Lets let Admin worry about admin. I'm sure they have thought this thing through or they wouldn't have opened it to a vote.
I do think there should be accountability, I would hate to see this great board turn into the $hit show that Fred's Place has become.

[DCCS Keith Wilbee]

Ok Ive read long enough. What is admins definition of a Chief? Mine and theirs is probably different.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Keith,
At the moment, we are approving memberships for active duty/reserve E-7s, E-8s, and E-9s only.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

BMCS E., you make my point, what would happen if someone, (not picking on them but a retiree perhaps) printed an unsubstantiated rumor ala the Newsweek story that slandered a fellow Chief. Although the piece could be deleted or the story retracted, the damage would have already been done. And, the retired Chief could go on their merry way with no fear of repercussion. It's called accountability, you cannot hold them accountable if there is no way to reach them.

Senior Chief Slesh, check out the forum on Fred's Place sometime, you will see exactly what I am talking about.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Raymond, I've never bothered with Fred's place for just that reason. I like to know who I'm talking to. Again we would be screening to ensure that the new members wore anchors. People on Fred's Place can claim to have been anything. Also once something offensive was removed the accused would still have posting priveledges to refute any wrong doing.

[MKC Tony Balcer]

Ray,

Hang on a sec here. I thought we were all adults and can be trusted to act accordingly. Fear of reprisal is not a requirement for membership. I know for me, that's not what keeps me in line. Sorry, just don't buy that.

You make a good point about accountability. But I think we are better than that, and at some point we have to give people the benefit of the doubt. I also don't want this place to become like FP. It's just too nuts over there with people just bashing on each other for the hell of it. Nothing constructive can come from that.

But, I do feel that there a great opportunity for us to expand our horizons, if you will. I have a couple of friends that are retired now and would love to be able to participate in our discussions.

Furthermore, lets just say for arguments sake that I retire. Does that mean that I'm done here? That would just be wrong.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Fred's Place and this board are two separate issues and should be treated as such. People that post ridiculous/absurd things on Fred's Place do it because they can. I can't imagine that a retired chief would act the same way here, why would they? Fred's Place is a free-for-all discussion board with few boundaries. This board is not the same, it has (and should have) boundaries.

[Bosn Robert Wilson (BMC)]

My only concern is what does happen on Freds Place will start here. I know they are two different forums, but we are talking about letting members who post over there join here. There are certain retired Chiefs that post on FP who only seem to be content stirring the pot, and they are not posting anonymously. Do they want to post here to help or to keep stirring the pot and telling us how leadership has gone down the drain in todays Coast Guard.

With that being said, I voted yes because I believe that once a Chief always a Chief. We will never know how it will work unless we try it.

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

Dennis: A Chiefs mess is there to help the Captain run the unit. This may be by running issues for him, taking things to him, or occasionally tell him he's screwing up. Of course, one of the most important ways we help the CO's run the unit is by providing the leadership for the junior E's and O's.

Because a Cheifs mess, (and the Chiefs call to the mess) is just for the Chiefs at the unit (major cutter, group/sector, etc), then O's should be excluded from Chiefs call...except for the Captain who should occasionally attend. W's should be included or excluded depending on the type of unit, and the # of people. My first Chiefs mess was large and active, the W's were (mostly) excluded. In my 2nd Chiefs mess, which was very small, a W was one of the more active (and certainly one of the wisest) participants (even if he was a grumpy old F&S...yes I'm talking about you Dan!). The retiree's were also excluded from the Chiefs mess.

The CPOA meetings, which immediately followed the Chiefs calls at my first mess, were open to all Chiefs.

But, again, this is NOT a Chiefs call, or a Chiefs mess. It is a discussion board that is for Chiefs. Therefore, all Chiefs (active, reserve, retired, and those who traded their spine for a higher paycheck :D ) should be able to post here.

[OSC Shawn Marchinek]

I am finally stepping out of the dark. First Post. I will be more active in this online forum. I have voted and agree that "Once a chief, always a chief." I think that those who have served before us and those who have gone to the "Dark side" all have learned lessons as Chiefs. We can all benefit from that wisdom. Knowledge is power and knowledge means growth. I think that if you were to turn away these resources then we would all lose out. Remember the ole phrase, "Those who do not know their history are bound to repeat it."? As long as nobody can hide behind screen names then I say more power to them. I have read we have trouble with getting more active members, well many on Active duty do not have the time to post (family, kids and all assoc activities, second jobs or other responsibilities) , only have a computer at work, are hesitant about using a computer at work or are worried that something they say may affect them in some way at work. Retirees usually have the extra time, knowledge to share and don't really care what someone thinks of their opinion. I know of a lot of people who read this site but are not willing to post. I was one of them. I am speaking up and will encourage others to do the same. Maybe just distinguish the difference between Active/Reserve as members, and Retirees, CWO's and O's(former chief's) as guests.

[PAC Darrell Wilson (Ret)]

I vote yes to Chiefs and retired chiefs only. The warrants and commisioned officers have their own places now. There are many ways to determine if someone is a retired chief. Frankly, I have been ashamed that retired chiefs have not been allowed to post on here and I have apologized to several.

[EMC Brandon Pfeilmeier]

Depending on the way this all pans out, will determine what kind of website this is going to be. If we want it to be similar to a Chief's Call, then I think we should keep it just for the people who are presently wearing the anchors. If we start allowing retired, or people who are not currently filling the role, we will see a lot of responses like "Well I remember when... It use to be...".

I believe 100% that once a Chief always a Chief, and we can get a lot of good information and leadership input. However, if we are going to want to hash out current events and policies in this forum though, it will be harder to do opening the door to everyone. Take Fred’s Place for example, I stopped going there several years ago, just because the majority of the posts were not valid and it just became a board for people to put their two cents in, even if they have no clue what they are talking about.

-Brandon

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Just to be clear, you can't split your vote. In other words you can't vote for just the retirees and not the warrants. It's either yes or no on the whole group.

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

Brandon said "If we start allowing retired, or people who are not currently filling the role, we will see a lot of responses like "Well I remember when... It use to be...".

What a myopic view.

First of all, THIS IS NOT A CHIEF'S CALL. This is a discussion board that only Chiefs can post at, yet EVERYONE CAN VIEW!

Second, many Chiefs (and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you fall into this category, I know I do...I made Chief in 10 and BMCS in 14) don't have much experience compared to the Chiefs (and Senior Chiefs) of 20 years ago. We haven't BTDT much compared to our predecessors. One of the least painful ways we can learn is from others experiences. If I have a problem, I just want a good solution. I don't care whether it comes from my experience, your experience, SN Gooblatz's exceptionally sharp cognitive abilities, or some old retired Chief who pipes up with a "Well I remember when...".

Those retiree's have just as much to contribute (and probably more) than you and I.

[PAC Darrell Wilson (Ret)]

Great response Senior Chief "V".
Ok, if I cant split my vote, I still vote YES! How narrow minded to think you cant learn something from someone just because they retired. And what a lame excuse to say we cant do it cause we cant verify they were a Chief. There are numerous ways to verify, you are only limited by your short sightedness.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

"narrow minded, lame, and short-sighted"

You would do better to argue with my reasons that attack my character.

[PAC Darrell Wilson (Ret)]

See, thats the problem with typing on this forum, its hard to get your point or tone acorss, or to the right person. Senior Chief Endicott, those comments were just me speaking my mind. They were in no way directed at you or anyone else on here personally. I was just stating that that is the way it seems to me. If I was directing those words to an individual, I would have indentified that person for clarity. Have a good day.

[EMC Brandon Pfeilmeier]

I guess I should not have used the term Chief's Call. I am fully aware that this board is not intended to be a Chief's Call. To make an assumption that those of us that want to keep it to active Chief's, we believe we can not learn from retired or people not currently wearing the anchors, could not be further from the truth. Not once did I say, or mean it to come across like that. All I am saying is that the wider range of people you open any forum up to, the chances of responses being invalid or even off topic are a greater percentage.

The way I feel and want to see this board, is for active Chief's. I am not trying to downplay or say that I cannot gain insight from someone that is retired or has advanced to an Officer. I respect and thank everyone who has worn these anchors before me. If it were not for their commitment, who knows where we would be today? I just want a place where I can get feedback and discuss things with the people who are currently wearing the anchors, this is the reason I was drawn to this web site. It is just my personal feelings and if I wanted a board similar to Fred's Place, then I would continue to post there.

-Brandon

[BMC Kerry Wagoner]

I had to vote no for one reason and one reason only. On this particular forum, we have no way of knowing who might be a "Chief" and who is not. The use of the "Chief" e-mail account is the only true measure, right now.

I do still feel that Once a Chief, always a Chief is right and should be adhered to by all Chiefs. Until someone can figure out a way to determine just who wore the anchors and who did not, this site should always be reserved for actual Chiefs.

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

Kerry: "We" don't have to worry about figuring out who's a Chief and who's not. Dennis, as the owner of the site, has said he can figure that out and will only allow Chiefs here.

Take him at his word on that. If someone slips in every now and then...no big deal. Dennis could delete the wayward posts and the user name.

I am truely shocked at some of the comments here, and especially at the lack of cohesion. It flies in the face of what I was taught by the Chiefs Mess at Group/AirSta North Bend Oregon 5 years ago when they gave me with an incredible initiation, welcomed me into their mess, and showed me what Chiefs are supposed to be like.

[ETC Jeff Rosenberg]

I agree with the CURRENT CHIEF policy, no former access. Like Brandon mentioned, Fredsplace is riddled with “Back in my day…” posts that are not helpful in today’s Coast Guard with today’s issues.

[MKC Tony Balcer]

I agree with the CURRENT CHIEF policy, no former access. Like Brandon mentioned, Fredsplace is riddled with “Back in my day…” posts that are not helpful in today’s Coast Guard with today’s issues.
Hey Jeff, I think you are wrong buddy. I think they have a lot to contribute. The difference here is that we have to act like adults, on FP there is very little accountability.

I have a couple of good friends that are retired and I still find myself seeking their advice from time to time. Let me tell you, they both are very old school. But, they give some good advice. They help me to see a bigger picture, because they were in this organization when it was a lot different. The form numbers may have changed or the policy may have changed a little. But the core of being a Chief still remains the same. The fact is that between the two of them they have over 28 years as a Chief. You can't tell me that kind of experience will not add to the greater good of this site.

I don't expect that either of them would be "popping off" or running their mouths recklessly. Just not going to happen. But if they did…. I'm also sure admin would square them away.

Real Chief Tony Balcer

[SCPO Patrick Brennan]

I agree with the CURRENT CHIEF policy, no former access. Like Brandon mentioned, Fredsplace is riddled with “Back in my day…” posts that are not helpful in today’s Coast Guard with today’s issues.
The issues are normally nothing more than symptoms. Most of those retired Chiefs have a ton to offer when it comes to "Being the Chief". If I am a Chief above everything else, the "issues" will get resolved.
Once a Chief Always a Chief.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

I'll concede that verifying the identities of retired Chiefs is possible. It would just be time-consuming. However, there is still the issue of lack of accountability.

In regards to the officers that were (are) Chiefs, I still have my same reservations about the appropriatness of them contributing to a Chief's Call- virtual or real.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I am big enough to admit that there are some good arguements from both sides.

I would be willing to donate my time to verify the accuracy of anyone applying for membership, even after I pass admin priveledges on to the next group. As for accountability, I'd still rather place a little faith in my fellow Chiefs. Same as the Os. I don't need their imput as O's, but I'd still welcome their imput as a Chief.

Just food for thought, how different would the thread about going Warrant have gone if we allowed imput from those who had done it? Where better to solicit advise on retiring than from a Chief who had been there before ?

[BMC Ken Gouge]

My only point is that non-Chiefs read our posts. When I post I keep that in mind. I think verification is a must, even if that means faxing something to the admin guys...

There should also be a "disclaimer", for lack of a better word, attached to their name when posting such as
CWO John Doe (former MKCS) or
Jane Doe (BMCM Retired)

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I'm just wondering if either vote will reach the "150" mark needed.

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

Yeah, at this rate we'll all be retired :eek:

How about the first to 25? If we do that, then you might be able to get 150 people to vote for the next thing! :D

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

If we ever do get to that 150 mark I'd suggest guidelines for sign on names as follows:
Os sign as as what rate they held,
Retirees put (Ret.) at the end of their name.

Ken suggested
There should also be a "disclaimer", for lack of a better word, attached to their name when posting such as
CWO John Doe (former MKCS) or
Jane Doe (BMCM Retired)
Which I would disagree with that, because any reference to someones current position could limit responses to their posts. I'm not going to argue with a CDR in a public forum, but I would with a Chief. I'm all for recognizing retirees because that could end some of the concerns some people have expressed but debating current policies with them.

[ENS Craig Dente (OSC)]

I must say that it is damn sad that an uninitiated "chief" can post here, but crusty old Chiefs can't post here because they've retired, or jumped the fence. There's some great discussion here, and I'd really enjoy reading the ideas and opinions of crusty old retirees; much more than I care to read the opinions of people who never bothered to go through initiation. I can understand not letting fence jumpers post here, but I think that retirees should definitely be allowed to post. I think it would be great to have a few of those old guard folks around to share their wisdom, stir the pot, and maybe lay a smack down every now and then. It can be required that retirees submit a copy of something that verifies their identity and status as a Chief via snail mail or fax in order to register.

[MSTCS Dave McClintock]

Good point Chief Dente. I couldnt agree more.

MSTCS Dave McClintock

[OSC Thomas Jackson]

If you think about it, some of the "Current Policies" are based on things that have already been tried before, and have failed. I think it's good to look back on mistakes made in the past when coming out with new policies. If we learn from our mistakes, we don't make them again. The "Retired Chief" can still give excellent input, even on new policies based on previous experience.

[BMC Ralph Williams]

Good Point.
I don't think it matters if they are "current policies", "past policies" or "future policies."

They have a wealth of knowledge and we need it!!

Ralph

[BMC Chris Gempp]

I agree.
They can discus mistakes made and offer advice on how to deal with it.

[ENS Craig Dente (OSC)]

Inaction in action. I don't see there being anywhere close to 150 votes. Another great idea to die in deliberation...

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Not to get political, but it's a reflection of our national view on voting.
973 viewings, 47 posts (many by repeat offenders), and only 45 people voted. Now if you don't want to post, don't post, but please....at least be active enough in the system to vote.

[ETCS Michael Backs]

My 2 cents, I think that with verification all chief's should be able to post if they want to, even if I happen to disagree with them. :D

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I think the retired folks are a valuable asset. I have thought about this for the last couple of days and like the idea. Heck, I still keep in touch with my very first OINC BMCS ret in 93. Not current on policy, but has awesome leadership and people skills and gives great advice.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

For clarification, I think the identification of a poster as Ret. or as an O or CWO just gives the reader an idea where the poster is coming from.

I would definitely like to hear from retired folks. Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

This thread has only been up for a week and already you're giving up on getting 150 votes in a timely manner?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Not giving up...just wondering if we'll reach it.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Not giving up either, but just what do you consider timely ? The most active people on the board have already voted. We have already stated, and re-stated our case, and now the rest of the votes are trickling in. Short of suggesting that Retirees and Warrants who want to post here start soliciting Active Duty Chiefs to become members and vote yes, we can do little more than sit around, watch and speculate.

[EMC Brandon Pfeilmeier]

You know the more I think about this and see all the different views, I think I jumped a little quickly on my answer. If we want this board to succeed then I think we should open it up to all Chief's, current or not. I am not sure of the total amount of people who are registered for this site, but very few people actually post. I know I am not on here as much as I would like to be and I try and get on to post when I can. I am sure there are a lot of people in the same type of situation, what happens when the most active people to this site retire? I say it probably will not last, opening it up to "All" Chief's could only help.

On my original debate of not being current with policies and stuff like that, I am sure that we still could take some kind of information away from everyone, even if they have been retired for a while. I know I already submitted my choice for the pole but just wanted to put in another 2 cents.

I know this part is going to start up another conversation and probably should go into a different category, but it was mentioned soooo... I was initiated 3 years ago, for the response why should someone who has not been initiated be able to post. Not everyone agrees with the initiation process, or maybe do not fully understand what it is all about. I am not sure why people chose not to do it, I have heard a lot of different excuses but they really are not that valid to me. Anyway, I am trying to stay on topic the best I can with this, even though someone may not be initiated they are filling the role of Chief. This site offers another option to seek help or guidance, that is why they should be able to post. For me, I am not going to turn down a Chief that is asking for help just because they have not been initiated.

-Brandon

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Just curious how the "150" was determined to be a good number for a majority vote?

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Good question. 533 members, 150 for a majority? I say set a number comparative to the people who actually voice their opinion here (regularly) plus those that cared enough to vote that might not fall into the 1st category.

Lets vote on what number we should need for a passed motion :)

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Over 4000 Chiefs in the CG, 500 registered members, 150 that have at least posted once, and an average of 30 new members per month.

It seemed reasonable to have 150 the magic number.

The discussion board is still relatively new and growing. I just don't want to base a decision altering its basic premise on a few vocal Chiefs (myself included).

The board monitors and I will be asking each new member that we verify to vote the issue. I'll also send out an email to the board bang list (once I figure out how that works) to also solicit the votes.

But, if you care enough about the change to make it happen, then do some legwork yourself! Has the Mess become so impotent that we can't muster 150 votes to make a change?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

That would be the real question now, wouldn't it? I'm going to hope that it isn't, and start calling around to get the vote going.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

VOTING UPDATE...

We only need 108 more YES vote's or 131 more NO vote's and we'll be able to lay this one to rest.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

The Chief's call should be to discuss issues that are "currently" affecting or being considered in the mess. I agree that the retired Chiefs or those who went to the wardroom have much wisdom, but are we gonna get input that relates to today's issue's within the mess. The Wardroom has their own agenda, and the reitree's may endow us with "When I was a Chief.................", which may or may not be inline with the current state of affairs in the mess.

I do think that we should allow the reserve Chief's access, they are part of the mess and it's easy enough to check.
I voted , no.
:) Todd

[MKC Tony Balcer]

I think I will be retired and no longer eligible for membership here by the time we reach our 150 goal.
MKC Tony Balcer

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Since I already voted, can I multi-vote and run the numbers up?

[PAC Darrell Wilson (Ret)]

Steve, this is not a presidential election :D

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Alright, how about active campaigning? Or is there a rule about how close to the polling button I am allowed to post my opinion on the subject?

[MSTC Matt Odum]

I have no issues with prior Chief's (retired or gone to the dark side) being admitted to the mess/ the forum, as long as they are respectful to the rules. (i.e. not running back to the wardroom with "Hey guys, guess what I just heard) ANd I think that the majority of the folks in this position would be. Last mess I was in was made up of present CPOs, retirees, and those that lost their bearing. It worked well, and I enjoyed the interaction and for that matter, the education..........MHO.........

[BMC Chris Gempp]

Steve,
Are you running for Governor of Washington state?

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

We suck at this. I can't believe that we've not been able to muster enough votes to settle this issue.

[AMTC Andrew Bragg]

A Chief is a Chief. I agree that we should require verification of former CPOs. They shouldn't mind. In fact, I think they would be proud to share this info. As for O's, the CWO's that I work with are professionals, and have separated themselves from our mess. A true sign of respect for those of us who work the trenches daily.

[MKC Tony Balcer]

Admin:
If I may I would like to make a suggestion.
Maybe we could put a “Drop Dead” date on the 150 goal. If we don’t make the 150 by that date, then we go with the current highest vote. It’s time to put this issue to bed once and for all.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Tony...good idea about a cutoff date.

Dennis...are you really that surprised?

[HSC Randi L. Ward]

[QUOTE=SKC Raymond Kurtz]I vote to keep it posting privileges for Anchor wearing, active duty (or reservists on active duty) Chief's only. There are several reasons for this.

I would like for someone to tell me why a reserve chief (on active duty or not) is any less a chief than someone on the active duty side of the house. COMDT's people philosophy includes "TEAM Coast Guard"! At a recent CCTI, I actually had someone refer to an AD chief as a "real" chief vs. a reserve chief-what is he/she then, a fake chief????

[BMC Ron Bowen]

As much as I agree that once a Chief always a Chief, I still tend to agree with the nay-sayers.

My thought process is that this is a current board for current members to discuss CURRENT issues that are effected and somewhat governed by current policies. That being the case, I feel that limiting the conversation to AD Chiefs is justified. I do realize and concede that there is much to learn from the experiences of those that have gone before us and welcome any and all insight that they are willing to provide in the form of the monthly essays. That seems to me to be the perfect vehicle for us to gleem some insight from our retired members.

Ron

[JM Clemens]

There have been some very good arguements both ways.
I tend to agree with Ron.

I agree completely with the adage "One a Chief always a Chief."
I think we all pretty much agree on that.
I don't believe that is necessarily the issue.

The issue for me is keeping the discussion relevant to todays issues.
One of the atractive aspects of this board is that all the folks have a stake in the subjects and opinions that are discussed here.

Some have tried to make a distinction between Chiefs who are retired and Chiefs who are now CWOs. If you open the door, you open the door.

I oppose a drop dead date for a decision.
The thread was started with a specific criteria..... not getting the desired result in a timely manner shouldn't be justification to change the rules.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I also think that we need to stick with the origin criteria of the vote, if not it's skewed. Admin folks have been telling new members to vote one way or the other when they get their membership approved. Look at the member list for people that you know and contact them to see if they have voted. Tell other Chiefs in your area about the site and get them to join. There are enough current members on this site to get a 149 to 150 final vote. People just need to care enough to vote.

[BMC Greg Klynman]

Since this will be my first post, I vote to include former chief's. I look back at my career and still look for advice from several of my mentors who have since retired. Getting perspectives from everyone including retirees is what makes our mess strong.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

We are averaging 45 votes per month. Granted, much of that was the result of an initial onslaught, however, we are making progress and I see no reason to place a drop-dead-date on such an important issue. You want to end this thing? Get people to vote!

[MSTCS Dave McClintock]

Looks like we still got along way to go to get to a 150 vote winner. Maybe before I retire in 07??? :D

[AETC Joseph (Bill) Adams]

I vote yes. In my view becomming a Chief holds a great sense of honor. Wether or not after a Chief becomes a Warrant, Officer, retires etc...that sense of honor still remains. Even if they don't look at it in the same way, I feel it exists and allways will.
Once a Chief, Allways a Chief!

[FSCS Craig Beisiegel]

I for one am really surprised at the number of people that don't seem to respect something that I have heard ever since I became a CPO (by initiation). Once a Chief, always a Chief has always been part of every mess that I have been a part of. I vote yes. I would hate to think that after I retire that I will be less of a Chief than I am now, and many of my friends that have gone to the dark side went because they couldn't get advanced to Senior or Master, not because they wanted to be part of the wardroom. I do not consider them any less of a Chief.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

I just to make sure that all of you are actually using the voting button. It's not enough to just write "yes" or "no."

[OSC Will Turenchalk]

My vote is in, a definate yes.

[ETC Steven E. Douglas]

I believe we should allow those who came before us and those who went beyond to pass thier Wisdom down. Intelligence dies with the person, Wisdom is what we leave behind. As far as having a id check at the door, I believe one is possible that would be fair for all memebers. All persons should be able to prove their anchors.

[MSTC Corey King]

This is my first post of what I hope to be many productive and useful discussions.

That being said, I voted "yes". I don't think anyone believes that these people suddenly lose their knowledge and experience just because they changed uniform or stopped wearing it altogether.

For the last 8 or so years, I've been a member of the MST Forum (now MST Hub). I'm proud to say that it has been very successful and required minimal policing by the forum administrator. When posters did get out of hand, they were discouraged and civility was restored by the members themselves. The MST Forum also lives off the theory that once an MST, always an MST. We allow the Warrants, O's and retired because we know they still have much to offer. Posts have even been allowed for A School classes, through the instructors (similar to prospective Chiefs posting here prior to their CCTI).

User profiles could be made to show a member's status (active/reserve/retired) and others could use that information to form their own opinions on what someone has posted. I think the problem with places like Fred's is that the user agreement has a lot of bark with little or no bite. Posters are given quite a bit of leeway before any action is taken. I've also seen people be banned multiple times in a week and just come back to post again under new user names.

But with this forum being tied to a real identifiable person, you're essentially given one shot as an active or reserve member. And I like the idea of retired being sponsored into the forum.

As Chiefs, we're supposed to be level-headed individuals. If you find something someone has posted to be objectionable or inappropriate, just allow them to say their peace and then ignore them. If they don't get the attention they crave, they'll get bored and move on.

Also, in response to someone who earlier said we should only be discussing current issues, how many times have you heard someone retired or nearing retirement talk about how history always seems to repeat itself in the Coast Guard? I see these people as a valuable resource to help us not make the same mistakes over and over again.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Corey...great first post. You are absolutely correct on all points.

[AETC Joseph (Bill) Adams]

Ditto!!! :) :) :) :)

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Cory-
It's not about them being knowledgeable or having something to contribute. I think that we all agree that a Chief doesn't lose his/her experience or knowledge after they are commissioned or retire.

It's about how we identify ourselves as a Chief's Mess. Anchor wearing Chiefs have very specific roles to play in this organization. Often those roles involve confrontation with the wardroom and/or command, or require action outside of the normal chain-of-command. A prior Chief who is now an officer, may not be able to separate his role as a member of the wardroom/command with his role as a Chief. Nor should he. His role is to promote the agenda of the wardroom.

We also tend to overlook one very obvious aspect of this debate. Chief's are subordinate to officers. That is a relationship that cannot be put on hold for the duration of a Chief's Call. To think otherwise is contrary to good order and discipline.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And I disagree with you on that point. I know Officers who go to the Mess and become simply Chiefs again. They remain soley Chiefs for the duration of that Chief's Call. Just as Master Chiefs and Senior Chiefs are just Chiefs. Outside the Mess everything returns to OPS Normal and good order and discipline is upheld. I don't see every Warrant or former anchor wearing Officer going to the Mess. The ones I do see, want to be there as Chiefs.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

As far as the subdordinate part goes, I disagree (in the mess only). If they come into the mess, especially during Chief's Call, they are "taking off the brass" for lack of a better description. If they weren't former Chiefs they wouldn't be there.

They still have to abide by the sign on the back of the door when they leave. If they don't, they won't be welcome a second time. That being said, having had former Chiefs in our mess from time to time, I haven't come across a problem with that yet and don't expect to.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

I thought about this for quite some time... and finally made a decision that kinda turns my stomach.

I voted "No."

I see a web site that could end up turning into Fred's Place with two or three very, VERY vocal members that have no outside-of-the-USCG lives that would end up dominating the conversation with stuff about what it was like "Back in the REAL Guard." Hey, I may have just hit 18 years total time in service, but with only 13 years in the Guard, but I have seen two definite and another slight shift in what the "REAL" Guard is...

To use myself as an example, I could retire in two years... imagine how out of date and useless some of the info I could pass in 2012 - just five years after I retire.

And, although we are still "allegedly" Chiefs forever, Warrants do NOT do the same thing that Chiefs do on a daily basis. Sure, there are some things that are universal - but if you use that as a basis, we should open the doors to ALL ranks.

And my vote breaks my own heart - as I am looking at putting in another packet for warrant this year, so I am looking to be excluded by my own vote.

It sucks, but it is just the way I feel. Thank you for your time.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Since we all wear anchors how about opening it up to Navy CPOs, Warrants and of course we could really gain alot of insight to those Honorary CPOs in the form of retiring O6's and USAF Students at the CPO Academy?

My vote will continue to be NO

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Come back towards the light Steve, you've gone over the deep end. We're talking about CG issues. The Navy and USAF can start their own sites.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Last statement posted to show absurdity of opening up the boards, it is my last ditch effort to rally the members to vote No.

That said, however, and since a new board was established for the junior enlisted personnel, why couldn't we explore the option of creating a board for the Warrants?

I rather like the debates/arguments and discussions we have as Chiefs.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Good Idea, now I have to type this because my response was less than 10 characters.

Are we trying to say that Chiefs need to be more verbose? I would think that If I can get my point across in 9 letters or less I should get an award, not a warning :D

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I think that people were looking to include those members that some of us still view as Chiefs into OUR discussions, not create a site where they can have their own. I voted yes in an effort to include more people, who I still consider as Chiefs, to give their perspectives. We see the same very vocal people all the time. I'm still wondering what the rest of the people are thinking.

[OSCS Jimmy D. Belcher]

I have to vote on the side of Active Duty and Reserves on Active Duty. We are the ones keeping up to date on the ever changing policies and new technology added on.

[OSC James Larcom]

Good day all,

Since this is my first post I’ll let everyone know that I’m a PCPO. I’ll be attending CCTI this fall. With that being said, I didn’t suddenly receive any wealth of knowledge when I pinned on my anchors April 1st. Is my opinion any better than a retired chief or CWO whose “been there, done that”? Also, to reiterate, THIS ISN’T A MESS!! The idea of “What’s said in the mess stays in the mess” doesn’t really apply here since ANYONE can read the posts. If we allow retirees or CWO’s to post and they can’t separate themselves from the wardroom mentality or you don’t agree with their opinion, just ignore their post. If someone gets really out of hand the admin guys can always delete their account. If you don’t want O’s or retirees to attend your Chief’s Call that’s fine, but why not tap their knowledge here? Getting more participation, and more ideas is ALMOST always a good idea.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Just want to kick this back up front.

[AMTCM John Long]

Thanks Dennis for kicking it back up front.

I will vote "No"

Here's why. When I first heard about this site a while back ago it got my curiosity going so I came here to check it out. I was intrigued by the idea of a site for current active or reserve CPO's. After making several posts and reading many, the one thing I realized was the info passed was real-time and relavant to what is taking place in the CG today. Outside of each others personel views, many of the posts are current, factual and to the point, not a lot of ambiguity. This is what I look for when I come here to read/research or need to post a question. I use this forum as a tool. If I had a general post open for anyone I'd go to Fred's, if I have a post that is audience or subject specific, I come here. Pretty simple actually.

I also went back and re-read the prologue on the home page of the site stating what the original intent of the site was. I also re-read Dennis's letter to the retiree's. Having done that, I suppose I'm a traditionalist, I just as soon keep the site in it's original form as it was started out to be.

To keep things in perspective, we are voting on who can post (remember, everyone can read it) on an electronic forum, not a physical mess. There should not be any disrespect implied nor hurt feelings whichever way the vote goes.

John

[Bosn Robert Wilson (BMC)]

This thread has only been up for a week and already you're giving up on getting 150 votes in a timely manner?

It's been four months now, are we still within the timely manner time frame?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

In that four months, this thread has been viewed 3143 times, replied to 100 times and only had 111 votes cast.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

We are still averaging about 25 votes per month, but the average is declining. Get your PCPOs involved. Charge them to join and vote!

[MKC Donald J. Thompson]

I believe the former chiefs have a voice, a perspective, an experience, a memory, a view that the active chief will never know. If all you know, is all you know, then that is all you will ever know. I don't agree with everything that everyone drops on my plate coming from offficers, chiefs, petty officers, or civilians, but I have the ability to either act on the info, record it, argue with it, fight it, agree with it, consider it, or toss it. My response to them verbally or nonverbally will tell them if they are being taken seriously or not. I have met alot of people in my life and haven't met anyone who has all the answers, and sometimes its the idea that eveyone says is crazy, that works. They thought Tom Edison was crazy, but there you are, the light bulb is still on. Now if we can just do something about those electric bills.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

What the hell does that mean???

Did you vote yes or no?

[GMCS Shane Jones]

Out of 3143 views, 111 votes, and 100 votes; it seems to me that this vote number could have been substantially larger (either way).

Thoughts to consider:

The retired folks have something to say; they still care enough to read our site. If we learn nothing from our past we're doomed to repeat it.

Many of the retired still work for the Coast Guard, just in a different capacity and title. (They're not up on current issues????)

The things we deal with today are the same issues they had in the past. Nothing is new. (Sure, some things have changed..., E-Coast Guard, Chiefs Academy, the seemingly kindler gentler). The missions have not. Emphasis and focus...yes - but not how we get it done.

Our mission as chief petty officers has and will not change. Can we meet mission and balance that mission with our people???

Chiefs are chiefs, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

My .02 cents.

GMCS Shane Jones

[BMC Chris Gempp]

I agree with what Dennis said..

What does all of that mean???

[SKC Ronald Brumble]

What does all that mean?


If you can't dazzle them with Brilliance!
Baffle them with bullshit.


:D ;)

[CMC Isherwood]

So long as the Retiree or Promotee is verified as being a CG Chief (I suggest sponsored by two current members) I am all for it.

On a different yet related subject, "Is there a way to block or protect certain subjects from being viewed/read by non verified Chiefs, ie CCTI?"

[GMCS Shane Jones]

Gempp and Brumble,

Are you responding to my post???

I voted yes...about six months ago.

Have a great day.
GMCS Shane Jones

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

On a different yet related subject, "Is there a way to block or protect certain subjects from being viewed/read by non verified Chiefs, ie CCTI?"

This is an open forum, and the topics can be viewed by anyone. We talked about creating a seperate thread that could only be viewed by Chiefs, but the creators of the site didn't want to. They felt that certain people would then only post in that forum and it would defeat the purpose of the open discussions. The people with administrative authority can always remove or edit any subject matter that should only be discussed among initiated Chiefs.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

just want to kick this back out front for awhile.

[MKC John Shearouse]

Greetings to all. I am new to this forum and as with most things in the Coast Guard I do have an oppinon on this thread. I do believe we should allow retire Chiefs the chance to be a member. They still have advice and wisdom they can share with the rest of us. I think it is ashame to leave a Chief out in the cold only because he has retired or been advance. In my view and my view only I think it is sending out a meesage to all that yes it is true that once a chief always a chief. But once you retire or move up the ranks your oppion is not needed. But like I said that is my view and if some ones is offended by that view I am sorry. But this is a mess and I can be frank with my thoughts.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

John,
Welcome to the board and be as frank as you want, but do remember that this isn't the mess and we can't close the door, so everyone who acesseses this site no matter what paygrade can see what is said they just can't post, you didn't offend me that's your opinion. Just a heads up!!! Again, welcome to fantasy island!!!!!!!!!!! :D
Todd

[MSTCM C Stevenson]

Let'm in.
Better yet, create a more distinctive forum to channel/contain retirement commentary and I-remember-when stories, the latter of which would bleed to other forums if left unchecked.
And put this thread to sleep. It's been open a dog's age in internet time.

[GMCS Shane Jones]

Thread/vote started May 2004. Tick-tock.

r/
GMCS Shane Jones

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Waiting any longer is dumb & will be counter-productive. Since this vote started, the yes vote has always had around 65% of the vote...and it still does.

Let's end this now.

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

I know this issue has been going on for a while, but I just wanted to throw in my two cents and hopefully this issue can be settled soon.

I voted yes to let Prior and Retired Chief's post messages. All the arguments (both for and against) have been posted in this and other threads, so I won't repeat them.

I just want to say that these people have something to give this site and we should let them.

This isn't the Mess, and since everyone can view these posts and no one is able to hide their identities, then the possibility of misuse is small.

I would like to recommend that they have their present Rank and/or status as part of their User name though. It lets everyone put their remarks in the respective they need to be in.

So, let them in and close down this poll.

Thanks,
ETCM Joe Harold

[admin]

Although the membership requirement vote did not get to its 150 mark, we feel that the desire to include "all" Chiefs within the board's membership was amply demonstrated by a 2-1 response in favor.

As such, we will begin to include anyone that has worn the anchors during their career, including active duty and reserve officers, and retirees.

In order to verify identities, active duty/reserve officers must use their global email address when registering. Your user name will be written in the following format- "CWO Ed Smith (MKC)"

Retiree user names will be written in the following format-
"MKC Ed Smith (ret)" or
"CWO Ed Smith (MKC) (ret)

So that we may verify indentities, retirees must be sponsored by a current member of the discussion board. You may have your sponsor send an email to the webmaster link on either the discussion board main page, or the web site home page verifying your identity as a Chief.

This is a new process, and its bound to have some initial problems. Please be patient while we work thru them.