Today's vs. Past CPOs.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

A new thread to keep the original on topic.


Now, if you want to discuss/debate/disagree with issues relevent to TODAY's Coast Guard Chief Petty Officer without resorting to personal attacks, I welcome the opportunity to debate you in this forum.

OK, I'll bite. What is different about "TODAY's" CPOs than from the past?

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

This runs the same as every service and pay-grade has for eons... the "old" timers say that the "new" folks have it easier and don't pay their collective dues the way "we" used to have to.

If you look back into the writings of Pliny the Elder and others, you see the same thing being said - fast forward to the War between the States and you hear the same things...

If we think back to when we were young in the service, recall what you overheard the senior ranking people saying - and it was the same... "These young whippersnappers have it so easy! They didn't have to do what we did back in the Old Guard!! That was when (insert rate/rank here) were REAL (insert same rate/rank here)."

Things change - and many (I would offer: MOST) old timers don't care for change... we like things to stay the course. Listen to the folks retiring nowadays, many say, "This isn't the Coast Guard that I enlisted in back in the day. I'm leaving like a rat leaving a sinking ship." I heard that when I was a non-rate, and I hear it today - with two generations of people saying it. My best friend said it - and he is one of the more gumby people I know - and he couldn't take the changes... and he bailed before September Eleventh, so he didn't pick up on the biggest course change in decades.

Not the same service? No fooling, Sherlock!! Things change - and if we don't/can't change, we are bypassed by those who are willing to make those changes. We hear it here as well - with people opining about the loss of the M1911A1 .45 caliber pistol - and the M1 Garand - and the M60 machine gun - and beards - and Bosun Hole justice... things change.

"We" (the new senior enlisted folks), are the same as "You" (the retired senior enlisted folks), just in a new decade. We are the same as the crews of the original nine cutters - in newfangled cutters and aircraft and small boats. Inside, we are still the same - and we will be replaced by the same people when we retire, as will they when their time comes.

There is no real difference between the generations - just attitude.

Or at least that's my opinion of it.

[SKC Ronald Brumble]

Jerald, I could not agree with you more. That is so true. Times change, and we all change with them, whether we realize it or not. The best way to adapt to this change is to keep an open mind.

I quote I like to use from time to time sums it up well.

“Minds are like parachutes, they work best when open”

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

We hear it here as well - with people opining about the loss of the M1911A1 .45 caliber pistol - and the M1 Garand - and the M60 machine gun - and beards - and Bosun Hole justice... things change.


Yet, the service is creeping back to the .45. The 9mm only came about because it was the STANDARD PDW at the time and the LE types liked it because it could sling more projectiles down range. Also it was said to be "easier" to shoot than the M1911A1--especially for the girls.

I shot a VC in Vietnam with an M1 that could not be reached with a M16. The M1 still works well. The M60 was a good weapon. Durable and reliable and fairly cheap. I don't have any experience with its replacement but it looks like an FN model to me.

Never cared about beards or "Bosun Hole justice." Yep, things change such as fewer people than in its history going to sea. More people today calling ships boats and more people want bling on their uniforms. Yep things change.

Then again what does all this have to do with the topic? How are the chiefs different today?

"We are the same as the crews of the original nine cutters. . ." The old guys knew there were 10 cutters originally.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Things haven't changed that much, as you've just pointed out, some Chiefs speak before they think, and another Chief has to correct them.

I think that the biggest differences from the Chiefs when I first joined and the Chiefs of today, is the amount of technology that they have to be familiar with. And as much as they know, the person coming up behind them knows even more. Chiefs have had to adapt to change with the times. Of course with the need to devote more time to learning that technology, something else had to take a back seat. If we're putting that to a vote, I'll go with confrontation. Today's Chiefs are less likely to seek out confrontations. Some of the "little" things are allowed to let slide, to avoid confronting the wrongdoer or the naysayer. More Chiefs today are apt to settle for less, rather than stand up for something they don't agree with.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Jerry and Ron,

You are no different than those that will replace you. There is no difference between the Chiefs of the past and the Chief's of today, point blank and period.

There are some differences in the way you do business [E-CG and such], but your baseline description remains constant, train junior petty officers and junior officers. The leadership skills used by Hamurabi are still used today ... ok ... maybe we don't slice and dice those who don't follow orders, or break out the cat-o-nine to whip them into shape.

Why do people still read Tzu, the art of war? Surely warfare has changes in the last five thousand years. Don't forget General Patton's battle plan for Sicily wasn't original.

Leadership skills and techniques, even with each generation having changed the nom du jour, remain pretty consistent, since ancient Greece.

There are things in the TQM area that I've read in a 1966 book, and the TQM crowd thought it was original. Those who read "It's your ship" as an example of a study in leadership, will be sad to find out that also was in that 1966 book and was practiced way before that person took command of that ship.

Lots of rehashing and regurtitation of proven techniques. Change the name so you can be charged big bucks to hear someone talk on something you already know.

We are the same, you and I. Each generation may have different tools to do the job, but I will dare to say that with each generation a little is lost in the technological takeovers. Some are detrimental, others are not.

I was in a fast changing program. With each improvement, billets were lost and the awards were "easier" to achieve. The 30 day awards [which took alot of work when everything was vacuum tubes] became 6 month awards and now probably don't exist today. That is an example of it being "easier", but that is not the topic of this thread.

Don't look at the tools available. Most do when they make that comparison. I know in the mid 80s, when I was teaching at the Loran-C Engineering Course at the Academy, the CGA had MACs ... complete with the CAD programs. Just five years before, that technology would have produced more professional handouts in my courses than I did using a drafting table ... but today, I own a CAD program and have owned them since the late 80s. Tools make it easier, but I doubt every unit has access to a CAD program, for their local usage.

Tools are tools. Tools change with each passing year.

Your position as a CPO is not defined by the tools at your disposal.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

This runs the same as every service and pay-grade has for eons... the "old" timers say that the "new" folks have it easier and don't pay their collective dues the way "we" used to have to.

Jerald, I didn't say that, and I don't believe that.... We paid our dues, you paid your dues, and future Coasties will pay theirs as well... the missions have changed somewhat, but that is to be expected..

There are certainly some things that need not change, or perhaps we have seen the CG "try" to change, only to fail... these we may want to pont out, since some of you may not know about them...

Please don't take our (retiree) comments as negatively as some do.. We may have our reasons for saying what we do, (experience) and, if given time, we will explain that to you....

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Some of the "little" things are allowed to let slide, to avoid confronting the wrongdoer or the naysayer. More Chiefs today are apt to settle for less, rather than stand up for something they don't agree with.


I couldn't agree more...

Wray... :cool:

[BMC John Phillips III]

Well if you believe everything that is written and practiced, new Chiefs are a lot better.

Old Chief's could do things like get hammered and not show up for quarters or underway the next morning. They could punch you in the face when you did their wake ups. Old Chiefs could refer to women as "the girls." Old Chiefs could smoke on the mess deck and blow the smoke in your face if you didn't like it. Old Chiefs practiced a policy of do as I say, not do as I do.

Did some of the old practices make the Chiefs more respected and stronger leaders or did it make them more feared and less understood?

In reality, new Chiefs really aren't any different than old Chiefs, we just have to play by a better set of rules than Old Chiefs. Change for the better is always good, change for the sake of change is not. I will also add that while political correctness that you see nowadays doesn't always sit best or work best for some people, it usually does for most.

If you have read this the way I intended, you realize that I am not talking about "all old Chiefs" but only some. The message is that some things that used to be accepted or overlooked for the most part are no longer. Also, most of the examples I have given, I had either seen or heard about in my first few years in.

P.S. This new Chief is not the least bit afraid of confrontation. Ask anyone that knows him. Also way to go Jerald, start talking guns and history with a retired GMCM that writes about history.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

They could punch you in the face when you did their wake ups.

And you think nothing like that happened elsewhere?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, I'll be one of those people who didn't read it the way you intended to write it. I'll go with none of the examples that you used were acceptable practices. I'll also go with most of those things are still attempted today and if you asked around people could come up with worse examples. I'll also go with the fact that at least some of those "old" Chiefs were the ones that stopped some of those "new" Chiefs from repeating the mistakes of the past.

[SKC Ronald Brumble]

we just have to play by a better set of rules than Old Chiefs

I don't know about that statment John. Who's to say that our rules are better than theirs. I don't think our rules are better or worse.

However we do seem to have more of them now. :eek:

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

John,

I, personally, never saw any of the examples you gave. Some of the CPOs I served with were tough but they all had the concerns of the troops at hand.

In my retired years, and having served as a civilian instructor aboard three USN vessels, I noticed a decline there in the CPOs willingness to take care of thier troops. One BMC told me he liked having the CMC because the CMC took over all the personnel administrative BS he didn't like. This was pretty common on all three of those vessels.

One of the larger differences I've seen is the rise of careerism and the imposition of corporate style requirements in the current era. Why should anyone be forced to attend a school to advance to the highest enlisted grades? What says this school actually produces better CPOs? Besides, by the time a person goes to the school it is too late. Building better CPOs starts at PO3 and is (hopefully) refined by PO1.

We all know this outlook began in the 1970s when the officer corps began believeing it could no longer trust the CPOs. In turn the CPOs began coming more officer like to regain that trust. I suppose this is one of the largest differences. I do not claim all bought into that scheme, but many did especially with the birth of the SEA/Advisor/CMC roles. I watched some CPOs sell their mothers to get into that block. As they began to have power in that area many others felt threatened and began adopting the same outlooks. It was just part of the social Darwinism that prevaded the nation as a whole. However, the question remains was it, or is it, good for the Coast Guard? If everone wants to be the same then where are the free thinkers and risk takers. If the CPOs will not take risks and make decisions who will teach the JOs and the next generation of CPOs?


About technology, having served aboard two WWII era cutters, I found that learning, maintaining and understanding older technology gave me a greater understanding and appreciation for newer technologies. Personal computers were just coming to the Coast Guard when I retired. I still have a couple of the 8-inch floppy disks to show folks. They were slow, dual disk boot systems with limited capacity. However, I saw the future in them and while going to college I spent nights and weekends in the library learning various programs. I am sure that had I continued in the Coast Guard I would have learned the same in the same way I learned whatever the Coast Guard handed me.


témérité, témérité, toujours témérité

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Bill, I don't think that it's ever to late to teach someone the right way to do things. If you wait too long they may be unwilling to learn though.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill, I don't think that it's ever to late to teach someone the right way to do things. If you wait too long they may be unwilling to learn though.

No, it is never too late, but I bet most attend the training just to get their tickets punched for possible future advancement. This mandate could set up an outlook that it is just something they have to do. I've run into this while teaching undergraduate students. The core courses are a pain, but something they have to do.

The trick is to train the folks earlier. To make this form of training that is an expected, and anticipated, part of a career.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Today's-vs-Yesterday's CPOs:

I think it isn't that we face different issues or have different ways of handling things.

I think it is really more about our people at more junior levels having more access to more information directly from the sources. This in turn allows them to have greater visibility and allows them to challenge or debate the policy in forums like military.com, the Deckplate, or a blog.

The Commandant's State of the CG Address will be available via podcast today, talk about straight from the horses mouth.

In the past, word would be passed at quarters or standing orders or through the division CPOs to the deckplate. There wasn't really much room for discussion or debate on the policy.

Today, junior personnel have access to direct sources and even have the forum to debate publicly the various policies. I know these discussions and debates occurred in the Bosn Hold, or the Mess Deck, but with the connectivity both at home and work that mess deck is significantly larger.

Not that any of this is a bad thing necessarily, but there are fewer filters to the information that can help to explain it to our people before they go off half-cocked (is that the right term Bill?) and post their thoughts.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

There are plans to implement a multi-tiered leadership training. But before the people in the front office can go and ask for more money, we need to fully utilize the money already being spent. Each seat at the CPOA runs about $6400. Congrats to the class who just graduated without an empty seat. That hasn't happened in years. We need to keep filling those seats before we can look at creating new ones. I agree to do that, we need to change some attitudes. Today's vs. Past CPOs............. neither thought they needed the help, both were wrong.
Accept help from people offering it. Go into a situation willing to learn, and you may just learn something new.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Today's-vs-Yesterday's CPOs:
I think it is really more about our people at more junior levels having more access to more information directly from the sources. This in turn allows them to have greater visibility and allows them to challenge or debate the policy in forums like military.com, the Deckplate, or a blog.

The Commandant's State of the CG Address will be available via podcast today, talk about straight from the horses mouth.



Having more information does not mean they know what to do with it. The relationship between the CPO and juniors (and to JOs) is one of a journeyman teaching an apprentice. I believe someone years ago tried to get his started in the CG.

They may have access but do they have access to the larger context? Doubtful. Having spent many mornings at quarters I can say there were questions and answers given. The chiefs usually had thier leading POs field whatever debate there was. I've had a number of officers have sit-downs with the troops and explain many topics that applied to them.

I believe the Coast Guard is still somewhat a military service and having younger people "challenge" policy is not a good idea. There are rules against this. If they have concerns and questions then these should be asked up the line. I know most have never read Arthur Ageton's book on naval leadership but everyone should. It should be on the required reading list for everyone. It is dated, but the principles hold true.

I am not so sure that 'challenging' policy on the internet is a good form. What happens is that similiarly uninformed people tend to those of that ilk and nothing is resolved except to gain support for their common complaint. It is much easier to have time to 'challenge' policy in a non-operational setting where the outcome will have little or no overall impact.

As for the Commandant's State of the CG Address, if you believe this I've got some bomb free property in Iraq to sell you. This is a polictical speech like all the others and rarely cause any change in the service. Most are rehashes of the hearing testimony given to the congressional committees.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

There are plans to implement a multi-tiered leadership training. But before the people in the front office can go and ask for more money, we need to fully utilize the money already being spent. Each seat at the CPOA runs about $6400. Congrats to the class who just graduated without an empty seat. That hasn't happened in years. We need to keep filling those seats before we can look at creating new ones. I agree to do that, we need to change some attitudes. Today's vs. Past CPOs............. neither thought they needed the help, both were wrong.
Accept help from people offering it. Go into a situation willing to learn, and you may just learn something new.

The first thing is to remove the punitive nature of not attending the class. This would make it more open to those who wish to grow personally and professionally.

If people do not want to attend find out why? Perhaps it is too long. Perhaps it is not long enough. I really don't know the length of the course.

Perhaps the subject matter is not seen as being helpful. Sometimes too much theory is just that. What practical use is it? Perhaps it is trying to be the same as other service schools. I haven't seen a syllabus so I do not know.

I turned down an opportunity to go to the SGT. Major's academy because, at the time, that meant leaving the rating. I felt my job in rating was more important. It could be others feel they are needed more where they are.

Over the years I have seen the complaints of the school billets not being filled. Perhaps there are too many seats. Is there some formula requiring a certain number of seats?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

There aren't any punitive measures in place to not attend. You just can't advance. But you could apply that same thing to practical factors or a command recommendation. Not meeting an advancement requiremnet can't be viewed as punitive.
The class is made up of eight teams of eight people. There can't be too many seats because we still have over a thousand E-7 and above yet to attend.
The CPOA is unique to the Coast Guard. Every part of the course has practical applications. The people who can't see the benefit to the course haven't attend it. There is something in the course for everyone.
The course is set up for the people attending. They teach you things that you can apply to all aspects of your life, not just work.
People aren't going because they don't want to, and they don't have to. They don't want to hear aboiut the benefits, they just don't want to go.

I think that challenging policy in the proper manner and in the proper forum is the only way to effect ively bring about change. We constantly teach our people to look for ways to improve our performance. We teach our people that their input is valuable.


If you're looking for what's never appropriate, check your last paragraph. You're stating that as if it's fact. You're labeling the man as a con artist. I consider myself to be an excellent judge of people. Re-read his address. You may not believe what he's saying, but I'll tell you two people who do. The COMDT and me. I believe that he's doing his absolute best for the Coast Guard in all things. I don't want your land or your completely inappropriate comments. But I'm buying everything that man is selling, because he believes in his product. I'm not saying that you have to. But you should watch how you word your rebuttals.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

There aren't any punitive measures in place to not attend. You just can't advance. But you could apply that same thing to practical factors or a command recommendation. Not meeting an advancement requiremnet can't be viewed as punitive.

I suppose this is a difference between today and the past. The past did not require someone who had recommendations and jumped all the necessary hoops to have a "school" put on top. I see it as punitive for those whom are competent in thier ratings and leadership abilities. After all this is what being a PO1 is all about.

I suppose the mandated school is because the Coast Guard does not trust its system of advancement. The senior leadership does not require formal schooling for officer promotions. I've know several who attended graduate school on the Coast Guard's dime and were not promoted to that level of education.


The class is made up of eight teams of eight people. There can't be too many seats because we still have over a thousand E-7 and above yet to attend.

OK, the stick has been laid, what is the carrot? Perhaps if the Coast Guard wanted to fill all the seats everytime it would send orders. They either attend or find other occupations.

They teach you things that you can apply to all aspects of your life, not just work.

For instance? Please give some examples.


If you're looking for what's never appropriate, check your last paragraph. You're stating that as if it's fact. You're labeling the man as a con artist.

OK, show me one State of the CG Speech that ever changed anything in the Coast Guard. The speech is not directed to the troops. It is directed to the White House and the Congress. Loy said the Coast Guard was no longer Semper Paratus. What happened to that? Yost tried to turn the Coast Guard into a military service. Kime and Karmek demilitarized the Coast Guard. Others tried to turn it into a marine science agency. In a way, all the senior leadership cons the troops. You don't think they tell you the truth all the time do you? Here I thought white hats were supposed to be cunning. The CG PUC was one of the best con jobs I've seen in awhile. They actually convinced everyone they earned it. We could go into some historical comments about the paternalism of the Coast Guard if you wish.

I have no doubt that the Commandant is doing what he thinks best. I've met him and he appears sincere but what can he really do in four years? What have all the others since WWII done? Historically, and practically, it has been constant wandering in search of an identity and purpose. Think homeland security is new? It got so bad in the middle 1960s the Coast Guard was ordered by Congress to produce a roles and missions study. These studies have been ongoing and here we are 40+ years later with the same size and type outfit.

Ever wonder what happens to all those plans and surveys that are generated with every new adminstration? I have.

But I'm buying everything that man is selling because he believes in his product. I'm not saying that you have to. But you should watch how you word your rebuttals.

I take it that you'll not be voicing any policy changes in the future. I never considered the Coast Guard a product nor did I ever consider the people in it employees or customers.

To recap Steve's remark, "I think it is really more about our people at more junior levels having more access to more information directly from the sources."

How is being in lock step with the senior leadership going to promote access to information? Would not the only information they receive be but one side of the discussion.

Try this. Read the congressional testimony, then read the SOCG speech. They will ring pretty close.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Take (calculated) risks but don't challenge policy? Sounds kind of oxymoron to me. I would venture to say that there is a time and place for everything.

This conversation reads much like a book on "generations" that I have been reading.

I went to the CPOA because I needed to go to make E-8. Having gone and put forth a great deal of effort to accomplish what needed to be done, I came away much better for having gone. Regardless of advancment. It is a good and worthwhile school. Many of the classroom principles can be taught and are taught at LAMS or other leadership training. However, there is also a great deal of professional growth and networking that occurs outside of the classroom that is every bit as valuable, and very important to every Chief.

[BMC John Phillips III]

No, it is never too late, but I bet most attend the training just to get their tickets punched for possible future advancement. This mandate could set up an outlook that it is just something they have to do. I've run into this while teaching undergraduate students. The core courses are a pain, but something they have to do.

Bill, there is absolutely nothing wrong with attending the Academy because it is "something they have to do." The people who have mandated attendance are a lot higher than me and while it's not an automatic, I will trust that they are a lot smarter and wiser than me. I went to the CPOA Academy to "punch my ticket" for advancement. It was something that Coast Guard leaders determined was necessary to make me a better leader; to make me a better Chief. What IS wrong with it is leaving the class feeling like all you did was "punched your ticket" or did "something you had to do." If you leave that class that way then the instructors at the Academy have failed. If your students left your class feeling that way, then you failed.

Finally, your comments in regards to the Commandant's State of the Coast Guard address are a perfect example of why I initially was against* retirees being allowed to join this forum. I found them to be inappropriate and "somewhat" disrespectful. I will also add that I am not a huge history buff; as I have stated, "The most accurate thing about history is that it has happened in the past." That being said, I know you are a great historian, so please excuse my Hollywood history reference, but if you watched the movie "Saving Private Ryan" there is one quote that has stuck with me since I first heard it. It was Tom Hanks saying, "Complaints go up the chain, not down." That is a practice that I have tried to adhere to ever since. Please realize that while this is a virtual mess and you are voicing your "opinion," that your opinion may be perceived as a complaint and these boards are open for juniors to read. And while you may be retired and out of any chain of command, you do have a rank and rating attached to your name, junior personnel are reading your words. (*please note initially-I have since changed my stance-which is good because they are now allowed)

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Bill, how far back are you going. The CPOA was made mandatory to make E-9 or go for a Gold Badge position. That goes back 20 (?) years. I don't see what the difference is between that requirement and any other condition for advancement. Aren't you arguing that some sort of mandatory leadership be required at lower levels?

You can quote history all you want. There is a great differrence in pointing out the short coming of past COMDTs and questioning the motives of this COMDT. You say that senior leadership is always trying to con the troops ? Speak for yourself and only for yourself. Who are you trying to con? I'm not trying to con anyone. I'm not willing to believe that my COMDT is trying to con anyone. I'm not willing to stand by while someone else makes that unsubstantiated claim either.

I work within our system to make the changes I think need it.

You can look under the CPOA forum for a list of some of the benefits of that course.
You seem to make alot of speculations without any real evidence. Do you know any Admirals that made it without attending a senior officer class of some sort? Do you know any officers who were able to attend that graduate school where the CG didn't require them to commit to service to get that dime back?

You seem to question all things CG. You seem to want the rest of us to believe that we need to question everything or we're not doing our job. You seem to lack the loyalty that you want the rest of us believe existed in the past.
Why don't you read your own posts? You don't need to go anywhere other than this board, in this forum. Ask yourself if what you've written is appropriate. You're questioning the motives and credibilty of a man that has dedicated his life to the CG. You're asking what can he do in four years. He could continue to do the same things he's done with the last thirty. He's making our lives better. He's taking ownership for the shortcomings that he inherited. Read up on his history before you question him again. He's not conning anyone.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

JP3, I am changing my mind to. Only I disagreed with you before and I am beginning to disagree again. This place is beginning to sound like "Fred's".

Now back to your regularly scheduled argument.

[HSC Chris Fly]

[QUOTE=BMCS Jim Madsen] This place is beginning to sound like "Fred's".
QUOTE]

Well, it wasn't until recently.....

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

As for the Commandant's State of the CG Address, if you believe this I've got some bomb free property in Iraq to sell you. This is a polictical speech like all the others and rarely cause any change in the service. Most are rehashes of the hearing testimony given to the congressional committees.

OK, show me one State of the CG Speech that ever changed anything in the Coast Guard. The speech is not directed to the troops. It is directed to the White House and the Congress... You don't think they tell you the truth all the time do you?... The CG PUC was one of the best con jobs I've seen in awhile. They actually convinced everyone they earned it...

I was at the address, I listened, and I can tell you this was not just a political speech. He has a vision of where we should be as an organization; he laid out his plan to get there, and most of all, he asked for our help to do it. The man means what he says. And if Admiral Allen told me the property was bomb free you would have a buyer.

And by the way, no one has convinced anyone that they earned the PUC. However, most people are convinced that the Coast Guard earned it. The streamer will fly on the staff with the Standard, and I wear the ribbon because I had the privilege of being part of the team.

Brett

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Well said Brett. I can understand some of the cynicism (sp?) spoken here, but not with ADM Allen. In my years of service I have never seen a COMDT leading from the front and as visible to all as he is. His messages are clear. His vision is clear. He recognizes the challenges ahead and is taking them head on. He is not "pointing" the way, but "leading" and asking us to follow. This is the best time to be in the Coast Guard.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Brett, keep me in mind for a corner lot, I'm a good neighbor.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

It was something that Coast Guard leaders determined was necessary to make me a better leader; to make me a better Chief. What IS wrong with it is leaving the class feeling like all you did was "punched your ticket" or did "something you had to do." If you leave that class that way then the instructors at the Academy have failed. If your students left your class feeling that way, then you failed.

My point remains is why does the Coast Guard's leadership feel the E-7 level is the time to begin leadership training? What I am seeing in some of the remarks is that many feel they were not qualified to be a "chief" until the finished the school. Why is that? The recommendations and requirements were fulfilled to compete for E-7. What else does the school teach to make one a "better Chief?" I'm curious about the philosophy of the school and why it is brought on so late in a career.

Finally, your comments in regards to the Commandant's State of the Coast Guard address are a perfect example of why I initially was against* retirees being allowed to join this forum. I found them to be inappropriate and "somewhat" disrespectful. I will also add that I am not a huge history buff; as I have stated, "The most accurate thing about history is that it has happened in the past." That being said, I know you are a great historian, so please excuse my Hollywood history reference, but if you watched the movie "Saving Private Ryan" there is one quote that has stuck with me since I first heard it.

The only good part of the Private Ryan film was the first 20 minutes and it was filled with every WWII cliche that could be lumped in. History is not in the past. It is very much part of the present. One book not on the reading lists that should be is E. D. Hirsch, Cultural Literacy. I recommend it.

I thought the reason this forum was called to all but CPOs and retired CPOs was for the frank and honest discussion. Did they not bring this out at the CPOA? My comments may sound inappropriate to many, but this may be from a lack of understanding of the Coast Guard and its past. I can guarantee you that the Commandant is fully aware of history and his place in it. However, this does not mean he is not a political animal. For example, the CG PUC was announced during a speech by the president. This was more political posturing.

It was Tom Hanks saying, "Complaints go up the chain, not down." That is a practice that I have tried to adhere to ever since. Please realize that while this is a virtual mess and you are voicing your "opinion," that your opinion may be perceived as a complaint and these boards are open for juniors to read.

I post here nothing that I have not put in print. USNI Proceedings and Naval History have published my comments. Several years ago one of the Persian Gulf LEDETS was on the cover of Proceedings . I wrote a commentary that I thought they looked like a bunch of pirates instead of professional military personnel. Everyone has the option of voicing their comments in that journal. I see navy CPOs doing it regularly but I don't believe I've ever seen CG CPO.

Steve (the PA) has told us the kids of today have access to more information than in the past and can figure things out for themselves. However, simply reading comments and taking them on face value without knowing the background will only lead people to an uninformed concensus. The same thing happened with the WMD debacle for Iraq (BTW, I never believed it, nor did support the Bush administrations policy of invasion. I learned to be skeptical from my Vietnam experience.)

One speech does not mean this is how the future will play out. Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations speech was a good idea too, but the LON did not live up to the expectations.

Only time will tell if the commandant's expectations will come to life or die just as many of the past have.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill, how far back are you going. The CPOA was made mandatory to make E-9 or go for a Gold Badge position. That goes back 20 (?) years. I don't see what the difference is between that requirement and any other condition for advancement. Aren't you arguing that some sort of mandatory leadership be required at lower levels?

Then perhaps it is time to take a look at the school and make some changes. If after 20 years, they are still unable to fill the classes then there is something wrong with the cultural aspects of the school. We'll have different opinions on whether mandatory attendence is punishment or not. I believe it to be the former because it limits the Coast Guard's ability to advance only those politically minded who may or may not be the best leaders in the service.

You can quote history all you want. There is a great differrence in pointing out the short coming of past COMDTs and questioning the motives of this COMDT. You say that senior leadership is always trying to con the troops ? Speak for yourself and only for yourself. Who are you trying to con? I'm not trying to con anyone. I'm not willing to believe that my COMDT is trying to con anyone. I'm not willing to stand by while someone else makes that unsubstantiated claim either.

It was you who brought up the "conning" topic. I would not say con in the criminal sense but con in the convincing sense. He has his own agenda and is working to get people in line with it. Most successful coaches are good con men. They make their people believe that they should follow him to be successful.

Yes, I will continue using history because no one can quote the future. It is like someone going to the OTB and placing a bet on a horse that has never run a race. In other words, look at the track record.

I work within our system to make the changes I think need it.

So do I, but in this forum I am on trying to change anything. Just expressing what I know to be true from study, observation and over 40 years of personal knowledge.

You seem to make alot of speculations without any real evidence. Do you know any Admirals that made it without attending a senior officer class of some sort?

Many. Most of the senior officers did their training at the JO or mid-level grades. The rest is OJT.

Do you know any officers who were able to attend that graduate school where the CG didn't require them to commit to service to get that dime back?

This is a non-arguement. Having obligated service does not equate to them being better leaders for having attended, for example, MIT. It may make them better technicians but probably not better leaders.

You seem to question all things CG. You seem to want the rest of us to believe that we need to question everything or we're not doing our job. You seem to lack the loyalty that you want the rest of us believe existed in the past.

Being loyal means to question, especially at your, and my, level. I spent my last two years at CGHQ questioning policy and procedures. Without questions there may be no answers. Just how does one work to change things from within if one does not question the status quo?

Why don't you read your own posts? You don't need to go anywhere other than this board, in this forum. Ask yourself if what you've written is appropriate. You're questioning the motives and credibilty of a man that has dedicated his life to the CG. You're asking what can he do in four years. He could continue to do the same things he's done with the last thirty. He's making our lives better. He's taking ownership for the shortcomings that he inherited. Read up on his history before you question him again. He's not conning anyone.

Are you not doing the same thing you accuse me? I too dedicated a chunk of my life to the service. Most have forgotten he did not really inherit anything. He was Chief of Staff in the last CG administration, meaning he was a major player in Coast Guard activities. He may be now able to put his coating on what he saw needed to be down, but if he is to get the acclaim of the current administration, he should get some of the blame for the past.

As I noted earlier, he is very aware of history. This is a history that I have spent over 20 years researching and writing so the Coast Guard may have a better understanding of itself as an organization--to make it better in the future.

Perhaps the current commandant will be the best since the end of World War II. We won't know for a few more years, but four years is a very short span of time to get anything done. Look at Deepwater, over ten years and nothing is done yet. (BTW, he defended Deepwater at a congressional hearing on Feb. 7)

Don't be grumby folks. Just acknowledge that are differing opinions in the world and within the Coast Guard. If you don't think there are differing opinions in the senior officer corps then that IED (we used to call them booby traps or command det) laden lot in Bagdad is yours.

Oh yes, as for sounding like Fred's. No way. I don't see the anonymous personal attackers here.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Bill for all of your explanations, you still don't get it. I don't have a problem with you quoting history. I don't have a problem with you questioning the past. I don't have a problem with you questioning policy.

You were bad mouthing the COMDT. If you want I can cut and paste a couple of the passages that you used. I've never seen anyone use the word con man as a compliment. And no I'm not doing the same thing with you. I'm talking to you. You're talking about him. I'm asking you what your agenda is. You're telling people what his agenda is......based on what??????? Your own speculations. You're questioning what can he do in four years ? With the help of his service, everything that he wants to. Four years from now it will be okay to talk about where WE failed, if in fact WE did.

Why isn't this like Fred's Place ? We have accountability here, so don't try putting this on my shoulders. You said that if we wanted to believe what was in the SOCG address you had some land for us. Put a positive spin on that all you want, it is insulting across the board. Look up the history of sell worthless property; it's a con. Your negative comments about my COMDT got this ball rolling, and the ball's in your court. Just so you know, part of the Coast Guardsman Creed is the I will let no one talk smack about the Coast Guard and let it go unchallenged. When the COMDT shows up at the unit, We pipe "Now, Coast Guard aboard" Say anything you want about anybody else that you want, I let no questions about the commitment of this COMDT go unchallenged.

Attendence at the CPOA is no different than requiring PCOs and POinCs to attend a two week class in New London prior to assuming Command Afloat. The CG isn't questioning their ability to lead, they're attempting to ensure they have a successful tour. The CPOA isn't the CG's way of saying we distrust our own advancement system; its our way of ensuring that every Chief has been provided with the tools they need to ensure a successful career. Its one more way that we prove we take care of our own.

The CPOA is a living thing. Each class has the opportunity to make changes to ensure those that follow are provided with the most up to date information. The course is constantly changing to meet the new challenges the CG faces. The course discusses increasing Human effectiveness, building generations gaps, active listening, improving writting skills, effecting change, CG History and traditions, .......... pretty much anything that you could think of to ensure that someone has a successful career, and can positively effect the careers of their subordinates.

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

[QUOTE=GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]My point remains is why does the Coast Guard's leadership feel the E-7 level is the time to begin leadership training?/QUOTE]

Bill, simply put, they don't.

I attended SPOLAMS as an E-6 in 89 (I think). At the time it was not a new course. All of my MRN courses had leadership sections. When I became an “A” School instructor in 96 we were teaching a leadership block, by the time I left Yorktown, the LDC had developed a standardized leadership curriculum for “A” School and we started teaching it.

LAMS is still going strong, and the Coast Guard is trying to find the money to put every E-5 and E-6 through the course. As well as many JOs as they can.

I won’t go into the history of the CPO Academy it is well documented. Since the course rewrite a few years back when the focus shifted to E-7s vs E-8s an E-9s, the Coast Guard established an Enlisted Capstone course to complete the enlisted leadership training continuum.

I guess I miss your point Bill, you want to know why the Coast Guard requires members to attend training before being qualified for advancement?

The Coast Guard has always required training prior to advancement. It may have been OJT, it may have been an correspondence course, it may have been a residence course depending on your rating. I can find no time in recent Coast Guard history where we advanced members without some type of training.

If you can’t see the benefit of formal training with a standardized curriculum taught by qualified instructors, I’m not sure we can do much to convince you otherwise.

Be Safe,

Brett

[BMC John Phillips III]

My point remains is why does the Coast Guard's leadership feel the E-7 level is the time to begin leadership training? What I am seeing in some of the remarks is that many feel they were not qualified to be a "chief" until the finished the school. Why is that? The recommendations and requirements were fulfilled to compete for E-7. What else does the school teach to make one a "better Chief?" I'm curious about the philosophy of the school and why it is brought on so late in a career .

Bill, BMCM Slesh already explained that once we fill all the seats at the academy and no money is going to waste there, we can then petition for more training money for junior levels. If you can only afford to send one group of personnel to leadership training then IT ONLY MAKES SENSE to send the leaders and trust that they will pass that training down to their juniors. You wouldn't have it the other way around would you?

The only good part of the Private Ryan film was the first 20 minutes and it was filled with every WWII cliche that could be lumped in. History is not in the past. It is very much part of the present. One book not on the reading lists that should be is E. D. Hirsch, Cultural Literacy. I recommend it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_literacy
My "cultural literacy" has taken form from the "need information fast generation" so forgive me if I use the internet and movies as a quick source of it. I am smart enough to know that just because I read it on the internet doesn't make it true. You should be smart enough to know that just because you read it in a history book doesn't make it true. People that come here should know that just because you said it about the COMDT doesn't make it true either, but it seems that the majority of the Chiefs here aren't willing to take that chance.

As for the Hollywood reference, I apologized in advance for that, it was the definition of the quote that I was using not so much the movie itself. Just another part of my cultural literacy - we use commonly used quotes or references to movies to express a thought of expression where it fits.


It was Tom Hanks saying, "Complaints go up the chain, not down."

For the record, I am not a big fan of Tom Hanks at all.

USNI Proceedings and Naval History have published my comments. Several years ago one of the Persian Gulf LEDETS was on the cover of Proceedings . I wrote a commentary that I thought they looked like a bunch of pirates instead of professional military personnel. Everyone has the option of voicing their comments in that journal. I see navy CPOs doing it regularly but I don't believe I've ever seen CG CPO.

Perhaps the common link between you and those Navy CPO's is that you both have more time on your hands or perhaps it is simply that you are all more opinionated.

Only time will tell if the commandant's expectations will come to life or die just as many of the past have.

You are absolutely right, so why the land for sale comment, are you trying to predict the future? Are you wishing failure upon this Commandant? Are you looking for a 'chink' in his armor?

I will add that I have received more information from this Commandant than any before him. The bonus is that it is all good information and I am onboard with the plan 100% - just maybe you are right though Bill, maybe I am naive. Only time will tell and if so 4 years from now you can write us all a book titled, "I told you so."

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

Just received from Admiral Allen via email to all.

"The world is changing and so is America’s Coast Guard. I invite you to join me on this journey"

I never turn down a polite invitation.

Brett

[BMCM Gary Keen (RET)]

"What is different about "TODAY's" CPOs than from the past?"

Wasn't this the original question?

To answer it I think there is very little difference. I think both met the challenges that faced them. This is the age old question that will probably never go away. I remember when I made Chief I heard the same things. I did my part and I am sure the Chiefs of today are doing their part. I might think that they should do things differently or use different tactics. but that is why they are Chiefs, because they can pick their own paths as long as they get the desired results, and as far as I can see they are doing just fine. When I retired I wondered what the Coast Guard was going to do without me. Now I realize that they never knew I left. That is fine with me as long as they send my check.
Gary

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Gary,

I concur. I've told people lots of times that I was the least important person on the unit [I was the OIC]. I could die tomorrow and the mission will be carried forth by the members who are trained to accomplish the mission.

I was proven correct, but thankfully I'm not dead, just collecting my reduced pay for reduced services. I think the internet has increased my services, but the reduced pay remained constant ... except for those COLAs. :)

Today's Chiefs are just like yesteryear's Chiefs. They may have some different tools in their toolbox than I did, but their core mission remains the same. Does the different set of tools make them better? That is open to interpetation. I doubt the results are vastly better than the days of the cat-o-nine tails. Your still dealing with humans and all the human strengths and faults.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

You were bad mouthing the COMDT. If you want I can cut and paste a couple of the passages that you used. I've never seen anyone use the word con man as a compliment. And no I'm not doing the same thing with you. I'm talking to you. You're talking about him. I'm asking you what your agenda is. You're telling people what his agenda is......based on what??????? Your own speculations. You're questioning what can he do in four years ? With the help of his service, everything that he wants to. Four years from now it will be okay to talk about where WE failed, if in fact WE did.

You ask what I base my comments upon? History. Commandants have been undermined in the past, usually from within his own officer corps, but also in the CPO corps that did not agree with the then current policy. I also know of national politics.

The current commandant has to compete with thousands of other agencies for the funding to make his ideas come to fruition no matter how much help there is internally. Frankly, the enlisted corps may do only what is allowed to do. This is the way the Coast Guard works. Do not forget the CG did not want a full-time professional enlisted corps until the mid to late 1930s.

Why isn't this like Fred's Place ? We have accountability here, so don't try putting this on my shoulders. You said that if we wanted to believe what was in the SOCG address you had some land for us. Put a positive spin on that all you want, it is insulting across the board. Look up the history of sell worthless property; it's a con. Your negative comments about my COMDT got this ball rolling, and the ball's in your court. Just so you know, part of the Coast Guardsman Creed is the I will let no one talk smack about the Coast Guard and let it go unchallenged. When the COMDT shows up at the unit, We pipe "Now, Coast Guard aboard" Say anything you want about anybody else that you want, I let no questions about the commitment of this COMDT go unchallenged.

It is funny you bring up the Coast Guardsman's Creed. The Coast Guard had forgotten about it until I "rediscovered" in my research and had some post cards made with it on it. I sent one to Vince Patton and he reintroduced it to the Coast Guard. It was forgotten history.

I have not "bad mouthed" the commandant. As noted, I've met him and found him to be very approachable and open. His dad is a good guy too. I've known many admirals of different generations and found them to be "nice" when it came to enlisted folks. However, this does not mean they will take you into their confidence or consult you about high level policy decisions. My approach is to use past conduct to judge ongoing actions. So far, I've not seen much different. All new commandants lay out a "vision" of their own. They all speak in uplifting tones and all provide nearly identical comments of how they are going to get there. Heck, one of them even created a set of "Core Values" to push it along. Another made these "values" punitive.

I've only heard one Service head speak his mind in a public areana and that was Gen. P. X. Kelly, CMC. He laid out in unmixed words the state of the USMC. Just recently some of the same things he said in the early 1980s are being repeated today. It is all part of the process.

I do suppose that you could have considered my comments about being a political person negative, but in the real world he is. He has to be. For decades the Coast Guard so apolitical it came close to being done away with. It was not until the 1990s that it realized there was a politcal gap in its operations. For some insight on this, read the unclassified comments of the Commandant-District Commanders meetings. Interesting stuff.


I believe you misinterperted my earlier remark about land for sale. It was to denote naiveity for blindly following without knowledge. I have no objection to anyone challenging anything I write. That is part of being a citizen, however, that challenge should have some substance. To merely cite, "because I say so" does not appear to be a solid base.

Attendence at the CPOA is no different than requiring PCOs and POinCs to attend a two week class in New London prior to assuming Command Afloat.

I've not attended these schools. Most enlisted people do not, however, I would not compare them to the CPO Academy. The greatest difference is those attending the former schools will have far greater responsibities in the future than those attending the CPOA just so they may sit for E-8.

Besides what changes in 33 days of schooling? Is there some religious-like ephinany? They now walk out of Two Rock with a glow of insight? I suppose some may, but those who have little experience in their formative years or were part of the 'shake 'n bake' groups.

The CPOA isn't the CG's way of saying we distrust our own advancement system; its our way of ensuring that every Chief has been provided with the tools they need to ensure a successful career. Its one more way that we prove we take care of our own.[quote]

Depends upon whom one considers are those of "our own." If the Coast Guard allowed them to compete and ultimately advance; it would mean the Coast Guard has already determined they had the tools needed for that career. It would seem that the Coast Guard is saying they are not qualified which would bring up the oft brought up topic of why they is not done earlier. As I asked before, what occurs in those short 33 days that changes all this?

[quote] The CPOA is a living thing. Each class has the opportunity to make changes to ensure those that follow are provided with the most up to date information. The course is constantly changing to meet the new challenges the CG faces. The course discusses increasing Human effectiveness, building generations gaps, active listening, improving writting skills, effecting change, CG History and traditions, .......... pretty much anything that you could think of to ensure that someone has a successful career, and can positively effect the careers of their subordinates.

Excuse me if I have a chuckle at this rhetoric. It has all the earmarks of the propaganda from the old Soviet Union with a heavy layer of TQM. I do have one question about CG History and traditions. If these are taught why is it so many active duty CPOs call a ship a boat? Also why would anyone want to build a generation gap?

I took your advise. I read every post on the CPOA area. I did not find much there. I did note that you said you had not been (but may have in the interium) to the CPOA and you also noted you did not need it. There could be others already having successful careers and do not need the 33-day school. As for networking, to what end? All of us networked at some time, the best places used to be the clubs that are now poo-phahed as being unacceptable.

One other thing that concerned me in reading the CPOA thread was the rejection of people for violating weight standards. I realize the purpose and the rules about weight but it also appears the CPOA has a different standard. Why reject anyone because of weight from the class. Why not, if the true mission is to assist them in having successful careers keep them, train them in whatever is taught there, but do not allow the "diploma" until they meet the standard Coast Guard weight requirements even if it is after they return to the parent unit. If the do not meet the weight requirements they are not eligible for advancement anyway. Of course, the CPOA may not trust the parent units to do this, but this is another topic.

I have no agenda. I have knowledge, observations, and experience. This is a way to let people see there are two sides to a question. I presume, this is one of the elements of the CPOA.

In ancient times it was routine for a ruler to hire a soothsayer to whisper to him, "You are not immortal." This was to keep the ruler on level ground. It is good advise for the rulers of the present.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

[QUOTE] I can find no time in recent Coast Guard history where we advanced members without some type of training.

If you can’t see the benefit of formal training with a standardized curriculum taught by qualified instructors, I’m not sure we can do much to convince you otherwise.



Brett, I am not looking to be convinced. The exercise is discussion of a topic. It appears people are polarized by their personal outlooks on the system. I could, if I wanted too, argue the pro side just as well. One has to understand both sides before they may know just one.

I still wonder why people are only required to get the training after they advanced if it is a requirement. I know the school is required for E-8, but if the concept of the school to make better E-7s then the school would be more appropriate for the E-6 level.

Is the curriculum really standardized? It may be for a time. I am sure it has been changed a couple times. Most people call it improvments but it is a change nonetheless. That means people of different times are getting different concepts especially as the instructor staff changes out.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill, BMCM Slesh already explained that once we fill all the seats at the academy and no money is going to waste there, we can then petition for more training money for junior levels.

John, But isn't this the complaint. All the seats are not being filled?


You should be smart enough to know that just because you read it in a history book doesn't make it true. People that come here should know that just because you said it about the COMDT doesn't make it true either, but it seems that the majority of the Chiefs here aren't willing to take that chance.

No active duty CPO should take the chance. It's part of the political Coast Guard and a dangerous game. Just because I wrote what I did does not make it false either. Knowing what is true or not comes with study and experience. It would seem most agree with in their assessements of former commandants, but are willing to give this one a pass before the final vote is in. Me, I take a more conservative approach and use what I know, have seen and worked with to make my determinations . Any final confirmation or change in opinion will come in time, but for the present I've seen virutally nothing new in the approach. It all sounds fresh, but is it really?

A biographer friend of mine tells me to look at the man outside what he says to gauge him. Let me make this clear. I, personally, like him. He is a fresh wind but only if you compare him to more recent times. He has yet to come in line with the likes of Captain Shoemaker or Admiral Waesche, both of whom were surperb politicians and to whom the Coast Guard owes much.

I know all written in history books is not true Just read Douglas Brinkley's book on John Kerry. Brinkley and I had a good exchange of emails about the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in it. However, I do know when history books are true as well. I've been asked to write book reviews on a couple.

Just another part of my cultural literacy - we use commonly used quotes or references to movies to express a thought of expression where it fits.

The best use of a quote is one that advances the topic and not one to prove a point. Quotes are most often taken out of context for the latter purpose. Just look in the coming political campaigns. You'll hear thousands of them. I've already heard dozens of them and these were just from the announcements to run. I'll hear more sooner. My congressman just died so we have to have an election within the next month.

It was Tom Hanks saying, "Complaints go up the chain, not down."

I disagree here. Complaints should go in both directions.


Perhaps the common link between you and those Navy CPO's is that you both have more time on your hands or perhaps it is simply that you are all more opinionated.

It does not take time to pen a short commentary. After all, I was told that writing proficiency was part of the CPOA. This is a good way to practice. Active duty Coast Guard officers also send comments. The comments may be complimentray as well.

You are absolutely right, so why the land for sale comment, are you trying to predict the future? Are you wishing failure upon this Commandant? Are you looking for a 'chink' in his armor?

I am not predicting anything. I am providing a view of the past of others as comparisons to the present. I cannot not know what the future may be. As for the land, it is one of those cultural remarks. It used to go like this, "if you believe X, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you (the Brooklyn bridge has been sold many times to naive people).

I will add that I have received more information from this Commandant than any before him. The bonus is that it is all good information and I am onboard with the plan 100% - just maybe you are right though Bill, maybe I am naive. Only time will tell and if so 4 years from now you can write us all a book titled, "I told you so."

No, I'll write no book about it. It would not sell. Not that many people are interested in the Coast Guard's past they do not see it as part of their Coast Guard. If you read Hirsch, you need to concentrate on the part about "generational history."

It is not the amount of information but the quality. I know he wishes to keep the lines of communication open. Perhaps this is one thing he learned from his predecessor. Nevertheless, he is only going to tell you what he thinks you should know. This is part of the Coast Guard's culture.

It is good people are behing him 100% but so far that 100% may be based upon only 10% of what is going on in the interworkings.

I've got some lakes for sale in SW Iraq as well.
;)

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

I still wonder why people are only required to get the training after they advanced if it is a requirement. I know the school is required for E-8, but if the concept of the school to make better E-7s then the school would be more appropriate for the E-6 level.

Is the curriculum really standardized? It may be for a time. I am sure it has been changed a couple times. Most people call it improvments but it is a change nonetheless. That means people of different times are getting different concepts especially as the instructor staff changes out.

Bill, The CPO Academy is about professional and personal development of Chief's. When you are selected for advancement to Chief, it means you have met the minimum requirements to be a Chief. The CPO academy is about continuing to develop. It is not a "How to be a Chief school". If it were, we would send E-6s

The leadership development continuum as it exists today is actually pretty comprehensive. It includes “A” School, LAMS, the CPO academy, and the SE/CMC course as resident training. It includes the ULDP (unit leadership development Program), IDPs (Individual development plans), EPME (replacement for MRNs) with tests at E-4, E-6 and E-8. The CPO academy is just one part.

It’s all about preparing our people for success. Anything less and we are not doing our jobs.

As far as how standardized? Well we are dealing with people, so it’s as standardized anything else we do, and it’s far better than just hoping a new Chief will pick it up on their own.

Brett

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Bill, I have you pegged as the most negative person I've talked with in a long time. You don't want to listen to what people are saying. Stick with history. We're all doomed to repeat it. You are the only one wise enough to learn from it. Unfortunately you're not wise enough to apply that wisdom. Woe are we.

If you read through the CPOA forum and couldn't see where I have already attended the CPOA....... your research skills leave alot to be desired as well.

And I guess since you re-introduced the Creed to the Coast Guard I guess you're grandfathered in from adhering to it.

Here's what I'm learning from history........ you use or re-invent/re-interpret (sp?) it to meet your needs.

Just so you know, history is nothing unless you're willing to learn from it. You can't use history to accurately predict the future. Today is everything. And you're looking at today and applying everything negative about history into it.

[BMC John Phillips III]

I believe you misinterperted my earlier remark about land for sale. It was to denote naiveity for blindly following without knowledge.

OK so now you are not insulting the COMDT, you are just insulting all of us naive blind Chiefs for supporting and following him. Shame on us.

Excuse me if I have a chuckle at this rhetoric. It has all the earmarks of the propaganda from the old Soviet Union with a heavy layer of TQM. I do have one question about CG History and traditions. If these are taught why is it so many active duty CPOs call a ship a boat? Also why would anyone want to build a generation gap?

Soviet Union and TQM have something in common? And are you seriously making a big deal out of a Chief or anyone calling a ship a boat? I mean I don't even know the answer to that question, although I have heard the difference is you can put a boat on a ship but you can't put a ship on a boat.

All of us networked at some time, the best places used to be the clubs that are now poo-phahed as being unacceptable.

This is in line with the topic of discussion - it is another difference between Chiefs of old and Chiefs of new. I think what happened is that somewhere in the middle one too many Chiefs (old and new) did something stupid at the club and that is why it is no longer acceptable. You also can't deny that there are other distractions at the club that hinder effective networking, like sports, booze, the opposite sex, etc. And maybe this goes back to the ship boat thing, but what is "poo-phahed?"

I disagree here. Complaints should go in both directions.

I have no problem with you disagreeing at all and I think we could create a whole other thread on this one. I would not be surprised if -as with your thoughts on the COMDT - that you would be the only one that felt that way.

No, I'll write no book about it. It would not sell. Not that many people are interested in the Coast Guard's past they do not see it as part of their Coast Guard. If you read Hirsch, you need to concentrate on the part about "generational history."

I will not read his book for much the same reason no one would buy the one I suggested you write, I am not interested. I think I have a pretty good understanding of generational history and damned be me, but I prefer to read about history and look at it with some healthy skepticism (by nature) and reason to determine what parts of it are true. All in all, it doesn't make a difference though as I am not making any of the high level decisions that will affect anyone outside of my immediate circles' future. On the other hand for the first time in my Coast Guard careeer (with this COMDT) I feel like I am part of something special.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

And by the way, no one has convinced anyone that they earned the PUC. However, most people are convinced that the Coast Guard earned it. The streamer will fly on the staff with the Standard, and I wear the ribbon because I had the privilege of being part of the team.

Brett, makes want to stand up, salute the Standard and yell, "Oh Hell Yeah!"

What I find interesting isthat the new C2 reorg plan was being briefed to the CPO Messes by our Gold Badges within 1-2 weeks of the Flag/CMC Conference that unveiled it.

That Chief's Call was mandatory in the Norfolk-POrtsmouth Area and we had MCPO's James, Botzenhart and Brown giving us the word.

Adm Allen believes, the Gold Badges believe and as a Chief, I believe.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Bill, I don't know if you're full of crap or just like to argue. Either way, you've re-energized the discussions on this board. Thanks for posting.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill, I have you pegged as the most negative person I've talked with in a long time. You don't want to listen to what people are saying. Stick with history. We're all doomed to repeat it. You are the only one wise enough to learn from it. Unfortunately you're not wise enough to apply that wisdom. Woe are we.

Yes, woe is y'all because you see only negative in anyone with a different opinion. Is this is what is taught at the CPOA?

I do find it humorous that when an unpopular commandant is at the reigns it is acceptable to "think out of the box" but when there is a popular one on one can get out of the box. I always figured that CPOs were always out of the box no matter who was in charge. I suppose not. It isn't about doing the right thing it is about popularity. I suppose white hats are no longer "crafty and cunning at all times."

If you read through the CPOA forum and couldn't see where I have already attended the CPOA....... your research skills leave alot to be desired as well.

That is why I put the caveat in it. Since you have attacked my personal skills, I would like to see an example of yours. We could have some private emails about this if you wish. I may have missed your attendence in the other inane remarks.

And I guess since you re-introduced the Creed to the Coast Guard I guess you're grandfathered in from adhering to it.

Here's what I'm learning from history........ you use or re-invent/re-interpret (sp?) it to meet your needs.

Here is another attack. Did you learn this at the CPOA? Is this the way you treat other CPOs? You should have countered with some authoritative comment about how I "reinvent" history. We could then see how you interpert it. Since you evidently have some expertise in this area it would be interesting to hear your rationalizations.

Just so you know, history is nothing unless you're willing to learn from it. You can't use history to accurately predict the future. Today is everything. And you're looking at today and applying everything negative about history into it.

I see cliches. You do not seem to understand the signature comment either. Today is the history of tomorrow. Of course, you are one who probably considers history to be behind you and not worthy of your time.

You also do not understand that I have only used history in comparative terms. I looked at the speech (which is now history) and set it against other like speeches. I saw nothing really different. I would like to know, from you, what was different if anything. What did you see in it that had not been done or said before?

In my research I do not place the present into the past. However, we may look at history in relation to the present. This is exactly what religious people do everyday. They use whatever religious text (all of dubious authorship) as guides for thier lives. The use history to predict the future.

If you have a complaint about the history I use then it would be more appropriate to comment on those matters rather than lower yourself to personal attack by shooting the messenger.

I would love to discuss your thoughts on history and how it applies to the current Coast Guard. There is a whole area now for this. It is physically impossible to repeat history, but the same errors of personal judgement and may be made.

If history is 'bunk,' then why does the CPOA have a motto in Latin? Why Latin? Why not Esperanza ?


A question. If people are not allowed to continue at the CPOA because of weight, why are smokers allowed?

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

OK so now you are not insulting the COMDT, you are just insulting all of us naive blind Chiefs for supporting and following him. Shame on us.

In a way yes and no, I was not insulting the commandant nor can the naive be insulted. As I have said, I see some better qualities in him than others over the last six decades. Nevertheless, he hasn't been there a year yet and the first quarter isn't over. CPOs need to be thoughtful and not cheer leaders. They have the responsiblity to their troops first and to the officer corps second.

Soviet Union and TQM have something in common? And are you seriously making a big deal out of a Chief or anyone calling a ship a boat? I mean I don't even know the answer to that question, although I have heard the difference is you can put a boat on a ship but you can't put a ship on a boat.

On the boat question, yes, I am making a "big" deal out of it. It goes to professionalism. A person in a sea going service should know the difference. I've heard too many Coast Guard spokespersons use improper terminology ( I know Steve is going to jump on this) and it can be only that they have not been taught or actually taught that such terms are acceptable. A BMC should know the answer to the question. I was told that the CPOA was to maintain the "traditions" of the service and proper nomeclature is part of that tradition. That said, the declining amount of sea duty billets is probably responsible. In the 1960s about 65% of Coast Guard enlisted folk went to sea. Today, what is the level? 25%?

I think what happened is that somewhere in the middle one too many Chiefs (old and new) did something stupid at the club and that is why it is no longer acceptable. You also can't deny that there are other distractions at the club that hinder effective networking, like sports, booze, the opposite sex, etc. And maybe this goes back to the ship boat thing, but what is "poo-phahed?"

What changed was the norms of society that combined with the paternalism of the the Coast Guard's culture. How long does it take to "network." Many of the those contacts made in the old clubs extended across the world. The clubs also gave a similiar point of reference for people. It was a place to tell sea stories, meet old friends and make new ones. I will grant that many got out of hand. Even Red Kleckner had his own corner of the bar at the GI CPO club. I can also remember the contacts made in the bar in CGHQ (Yost closed it).

Was there too much drinking? Probably, but it was a place where the "men" could go and be themselves. Even at the local army post there is no-longer an NCO or Officers club. It is one of the generic, non-descript settting that may be find for taking your wife to dinner, but it is no longer a "service" club. I've heard many officers lament the death of this networking tool.

I have no problem with you disagreeing at all and I think we could create a whole other thread on this one. I would not be surprised if -as with your thoughts on the COMDT - that you would be the only one that felt that way.

Jesus too was a lone voice in the wilderness or as the Trekkies may say, I "boldly goes where no man has gone before."


I will not read his book for much the same reason no one would buy the one I suggested you write, I am not interested. I think I have a pretty good understanding of generational history and damned be me, but I prefer to read about history and look at it with some healthy skepticism (by nature) and reason to determine what parts of it are true. All in all, it doesn't make a difference though as I am not making any of the high level decisions that will affect anyone outside of my immediate circles' future. On the other hand for the first time in my Coast Guard careeer (with this COMDT) I feel like I am part of something special.

It is true that you are not making "high" level decisions on a daily basis, but you should be ready. I am reminded of BMC Patterson aboard Point Welcome in August 1966. He did not make "high" level decisions either until his CO was killed and his XO was so badly wounded he could not funtion. He stood up and began decisions on the level that saved the lives of the surviving crew as well as the WPB. I am sure there are others, such as BOSN Earl "Porky" Jones who used his 75-footer to stop and return to port a 50K ton tanker trying to escape seizure. He made some high level decisions.

You should read the book. It is small and would not take much time. It may help put things you know, or do not know, in perspective.

I also recommend other forms of literature. One of my favorites of leadership training is Shakespeare's Henry V.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Brett,
And by the way, no one has convinced anyone that they earned the PUC. However, most people are convinced that the Coast Guard earned it. The streamer will fly on the staff with the Standard, and I wear the ribbon because I had the privilege of being part of the team..

I believe the job of convincing was very well done.

There was similiar situation about a decade ago. During a Black History Month speech then Secretary Slater turned to the commandant (sitting behind Slater on the stage) and said the next cutter the Coast Guard got would be named for Alex Haley. This did not go through the naming board or anywhere else. In turn, the commandant had to get to work to convince the Coast Guard that Alex Haley was deserving of having a ship named for him. It was a political expedient. And no, Haley did not deserve the honor. He did nothing during his CG career to warrant it. If anyone wants to know why put a question on the history board.

As for liking to argue, no I do not. Nothing comes of arguement, but things do come from discussion even if those discussions become passionate. Passion indicates interest. Being opininated was part of being a CPO but even there those opinions were backed up with knowledge. It is unfair to the readers to simply attack the messenger and not provide counter-discussion. Without an informed counter the readership receives only one side of the dicussion.

This may be one of those differences between old and new. There seems to little counter of equal value.

I am surprized that sparking debate is not part of the CPOA curriculum. It is fine to be part of the team but if the entire team has no sparking element it will be only medicore and single-A ball.

Speaking of ball. The Braves begin spring training today. Ah, a breath of spring is in the air.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Bill, I suppose I should refer to another CPOs comments as rhetoric or inane, that will probably help build bridges between us.
Being within the weight standards shows that you adhere to COMDT policy. Why should we allow someone to attend a school if they aren't adhering to policy? Also there is no policy banning smoking. They don't allow people to smoke in class. They designate areas where is is allowed.
And it's never right to criticize a sitting COMDT. It's never right to undermine his authority. The first obligation of everyone in the service, regardless of their rank, is to uphold the oath they took. Your first obligation is to follow the orders of those above you.

[BMC John Phillips III]

In a way yes and no,

A BMC should know the answer to the question.

Was there too much drinking? Probably, but it was a place where the "men" could go and be themselves.

Jesus too was a lone voice in the wilderness or as the Trekkies may say, I "boldly goes where no man has gone before."

You should read the book. It is small and would not take much time. It may help put things you know, or do not know, in perspective.

I also recommend other forms of literature. One of my favorites of leadership training is Shakespeare's Henry V.

Man, oh Man! I am professional and pride myself in being so. Even though I have been known to make a joke or two on here. Regardless, I can break this post of yours down in so many different ways it aint even funny (suppose I will get some kind of deduction for using "aint") But again, that's my "Cultural Literacy." See while your forte' is history, mine is psychology and even though I don't have near the formal training in one as you do the other, I do believe that some people are born with a gift or knack if you will for pegging people. Maybe you are right, maybe BMCM Slesh has you wrongfully pegged as the most negative person he has met in a long time. I would buy off on that, but there is no denying that you must be the smartest person on this board because in just a few days you have managed to join and get everyone all spun up with your comments. And no matter what we say to retort, Bill is gonna be right again. That's so silly. Again, I have to remind myself not to resort to personal attacks here as I don't want you to admonish me for it. However, my sense of professionalism is sometimes overwhelmed by my propensity to call things like I see them, so here goes.

You are full of yourself (see dillusional). You compare your posts here or making your point to that of Jesus Christ himself and even worse you coupled that with a Star Trek analogy (a very bad one I might add). You may very well be sexist as you say that the bar is a good place for "men" to network and you leave out women, perhaps another reason that the CPO Academy is a much better network than the bar, a reason this website is a better place than the bar. You mentioned something about smoking earlier too, I have to tell you I am not going to network with anyone that is blowing smoke in my face, much less up my....well you know.

You indirectly question my knowledge as a Boatswain's Mate and then you recommend I read yet another book on leadership. Well I have been accused of being paranoid before but I don't think I am this time.

I am going to try and step back from this thread, but in keeping with it's subject, if you are a representation of "Old Chiefs" and I am of "New" well I would go with the new Chiefs everytime, but that's just me. Also to all the old Chiefs out there please don't take that the wrong way as I know that GMCM (Ret) does not represent any of you.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill, I suppose I should refer to another CPOs comments as rhetoric or inane, that will probably help build bridges between us.


However, these comments are bridge building? "Unfortunately you're not wise enough to apply that wisdom. Woe are we.

If you read through the CPOA forum and couldn't see where I have already attended the CPOA....... your research skills leave alot to be desired as well."

OK, inane may have been a bit out of line, but rhetoric certainly is not. It is a good word. Ask the PAs they use a lot of it.

Being within the weight standards shows that you adhere to COMDT policy. Why should we allow someone to attend a school if they aren't adhering to policy?

My question is why the CPOA remeasures people. If the command certifies someone as begin qualified then why the second-quessing of the parent command. It would seem the CPOA is telling field personnel they do not know how to do their jobs.

Also there is no policy banning smoking. They don't allow people to smoke in class. They designate areas where is is allowed.

However, some have been (according to the CPOA thread) returned to their units for hypertension. Smoking a cause. If the CPOA allows those overweight some latitude to work it off and remain enrolled then it could require smokers to quit. It could make the entire base smoke-free. CGHQ is. There appears to be a health double standard here. I've known some pretty agile over-weight people in the Coast Guard-- just take a look at the NFL and Sumo wrestlers.

And it's never right to criticize a sitting COMDT. It's never right to undermine his authority. The first obligation of everyone in the service, regardless of their rank, is to uphold the oath they took. Your first obligation is to follow the orders of those above you.

First a caveat. The obligation you mentioned is not so black and white. Once as PO1 I had a Ltjg, my CO, order me to shoot some people who were merely evading a boarding. I told him if he wanted them dead he would have to shoot them himself.

This is an extreme example, but it certainly goes to having a greater obligation to the Consitution of which you also swore to uphold. Not all orders are good ones. Another example, once while leaving New Bedford and immeadiately clearing the hurricane gate the CO ordered right standard rudder. The QM3 at the helm called out "COMMAND," the CO repeated his initial order, and once again the QM3 called out "COMMAND." The CO then realized his mistake and gave the "Belay my last." The QM3 knew the order would injure the ship and did not blindly obey the order.

None of us should blindly obey if it evident from the outset it is a wrong order. That is where knowing and questioning over a career comes to play. The Congress gave E-8 and E-9s a special voice as advisors to the officer corps. This means they have a mandate to question. A good leader in the Service fully understands the necessity of having people who will question. He will be a more effective leader for the Service at large. This area is where Allen will be more successful than others. He listens. This does not mean he is immune to the political features of his job.

Part of a CPOs job is to be able to translate what their leaders say. To do that there has to be questions asked and analysis of what they say. This is not being disloyal or derogatory, it is being a thinking leader.

I've heard commentary that today's all volunteer services are better than those of the past because they are not willing to only blindly follow orders. The Coast Guard, because of the nature of the service and its size, has always regaled the independence of thought shown by its people. I suppose that in today's cookie cutter, fast food society people of independence of thought are no longer wanted.

Nearly one-hundred years to the day before Katrina, Captain Worth G. Ross, the last commandant to hold a field command, gave charge of a sloop to an Able Seaman for the quarantine of New Orleans. Would the Coast Guard do this today? Of course not. Why is an Able Seaman more capable of independent action one hundred years ago than a Seaman is today? The Coast Guard does enliste college graduates. Are they not trusted?

Dissent is not disloyality. It is a healthy by-product of advancement. I certainly hope the Coast Guard would promote this at the CPOA. Teams can be like tribes and actually retard growth and discourage future and progressive thought.

Of course, some may take a more meta-physical approach and rationalize inaction on their perception there is nothing outside the door anyway.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Bill, you're right, you don't seem angry or negative at all. I stand corrected.

Weight standards are about presenting a trim appearance in uniform, not just about health issues. If you have some proof that the people returned for hypertension were all smokers I'd be interested in seeing it.
And just a thought,...but maybe the CPOA weighs people in, not only to ensure that they meet the weight standards and set that good example..... but also to instruct the people attending the class the proper way to do it, so they can take that back to their units.

It's good to see that we can start seeing some middle ground here. Inane might have been a bit out of line, and rhetoric is a good word. Now we just have to look at the context in which they were used. You asked me a direct question, I honestly answered it, and you called it rhetoric. Maybe it is a good word, but used in that context, it wasn't well recieved. Maybe we can both agree that insulting each other isn't going to get us closer to a resolution, they do teach that at the CPOA.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill, you're right, you don't seem angry or negative at all. I stand corrected.

Well, you've gone from pointed attack to snideness.

Weight standards are about presenting a trim appearance in uniform, not just about health issues. If you have some proof that the people returned for hypertension were all smokers I'd be interested in seeing it.
And just a thought,...but maybe the CPOA weighs people in, not only to ensure that they meet the weight standards and set that good example..... but also to instruct the people attending the class the proper way to do it, so they can take that back to their units.

OK, trimness in uniform, but on my visit to Two Rock I found many untrim CPOs walking around. I do suppose that being trim looking but smelling like an ashtray is OK.

I also see that my thoughts about not trusting the parent unit is true. If you are going to instruct people to the correct way so they may "properly" instruct their units indicates the units are not to be trusted.

Smoking is a leading cause of hypertension. It is in many sources of literature. Quiting smoking may relieve the effects of hypertension. So, how many have you shipped back with hypertension who were smokers?

It's good to see that we can start seeing some middle ground here. Inane might have been a bit out of line, and rhetoric is a good word. Now we just have to look at the context in which they were used. You asked me a direct question, I honestly answered it, and you called it rhetoric. Maybe it is a good word, but used in that context, it wasn't well recieved. Maybe we can both agree that insulting each other isn't going to get us closer to a resolution, they do teach that at the CPOA.

Here is the sense in which I used the word, what is your's? b. "Expressed in terms calculated to persuade; hence (often in depreciatory use), composed or expressed in artificial or extravagant language; of the nature of mere rhetoric (as opposed to sober statement or argument)."

So why did you initiate the insults and have carried them on? I am the most sober person you'll find to discuss any topic. Often company speak is just rhetoric. I'm retired and have many years of experience in this area. Just speak what is in your heart. You don't need the company to speak for you.

[AMTCM John Long]

Stu,

I have to side with Bill on one item. I also don't understand the re-weigh when a member gets to the CPOA. It seems redundant to me. If there was a logical reason, then I might understand it. Under the new system implemented last year, all Coasties should be getting checked twice a year.

When you were at the CPOA, did they talk about doing re-weighs for the CO/XO/OINC/XPO/EPO classes? Do you know what % of folks were getting sent home?

I noticed recently a member was sent home as being over. When the member and was re-weighed by the parent command 3-4 days later, the member was within on the BF percentage. That makes me wonder about the process.

I hate weight checks but I know they are a necessary check-n-balance so I deal with it.

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

One of the goals at the CPOA is to have individuals examine their own health. The weigh ins and physical fitness tests are part of the program. There is no standard for what trim is. We do however have a standard for weight. COs and OinCs are required to have a physical prior to assuming command afloat, their weight is addressed there. The CPOA also offers a smoking cessation class for those that choose to attend.

Bill, it isn't a trust issue. Some units aren't doing the weigh ins the right way. That is being discovered and addressed at the CPOA.

I don't know anyone who ever got sent back due to hypertension. You'll have to ask someone who does.

As for who initiated the insults, that's an easy thing to pin point. For the record, my response about the CPOA was from the heart. You can chuckle at the rhetoric all you want, that doesn't make it any less true or heart felt.

[BMC Greg Clark]

My question is this why should it potentially cost a member embarrasment or the command of a member the plane fare (for the return, if sent home) to find out "EXACTLY" the proper (or CPO Academy way) method to measure? I have been weighed and measured so many different ways that I always have to have the COMDTINST handy when I do it just to ensure that it is being done properly for the crew.


I recently had orders for Class 139 at the Chiefs Academy and I had to opt out because during my pre-training physical it was discovered that my Blood Pressure exceeded the 140/90. Yes, I did smoke. Since then I have quit smoking and I am dealing with High Blood Pressure and evenually I will be able to attend the Chief's Academy. But I see the question raised concerning the weigh in there at the Academy. Why the mistrust for the commands sending folks?


When I went to PCO/PXO school in the spring of 2006 one of my class mates was disenrolled due to being overweight. From what I recall, it was based on his appearance, he looked unfit, they weighed him, he was over, then they measured him, he exceeded the body fat %. He subsequently was sent home.

[BMC John Phillips III]

When I went to PCO/PXO school in the spring of 2006 one of my class mates was disenrolled due to being overweight. From what I recall, it was based on his appearance, he looked unfit, they weighed him, he was over, then they measured him, he exceeded the body fat %. He subsequently was sent home.

This should not come as a surprise, it is one of the items on the TAD/PCS/any other kind of travel worksheets. It asks, does member meet min weight standards iaw COMDTINST....

There is yet another difference between the CPO's of old and the CPO's of new, we are being held accountable to weight standards - everywhere.

The fact that the CPOA Academy to me is just another way of ensuring everyone is enforcing the standard uniformly. Just as you used in your example, you know there might be a question as to you making the weight and you bring the Manual with you. Well the people that are being sent back from the CPO Academy may act like they are surprised, but in reality should never be.

As far as smoking goes, you probably won't ever meet someone that hates the stench of cigerettes more than me (probably won't find someone that can smell them sooner either). So no arguments on that as a health issue, but I will add that Obesity is a much more dangerous problem than smoking. I don't have any medical statistics to back that up, I just have experience. And in my life time I have seen plenty of 70-80 year old smokers, but never once in my life have I seen an obese 70-80 year old. Oh and Bill, check the life expectancy of those Sumo and NFL players that are overweight. No one is contesting their physical abilities, but most don't live to see 40.

High blood pressure is not something that is soley related to smoking, it is also hereditary and more frequent in African American males.

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

One of the goals at the CPOA is to have individuals examine their own health. The weigh ins and physical fitness tests are part of the program.

Stu, at this point I truely don't see merit in trying to explain the CPOA to someone that doesn't want to see the positive. Obviously the "Grandfather" clause was implemented for these same guys that know everything. Funny thing was I thought that I "knew" everything until I opened my mind and took to heart what others had said about the CPOA. And I'm looking forward to going this coming year. It's too bad that with the empty seats that we can't fill them with the retirees that don't think they have anything to gain from the experience. (I know that this will never happen). The way I see things, the only people that can truely bash a school are the ones that attend the course!

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

My question is this why should it potentially cost a member embarrasment or the command of a member the plane fare (for the return, if sent home) to find out "EXACTLY" the proper (or CPO Academy way) method to measure?

Greg, I don't think the CPOA is doing anything wrong, and I don't think they are out to do it the CPOA way as you put it. I do believe you are correct in that many different units do things many different ways and the CPOA is trying to do it a standard way the same way everytime. As to why should it cost the member the embarassment.........I would find it very hard to believe that any member that went to the academy that was out of limits by being over weight or simply looked sloppy would not know that about themselves prior to going. I can tell you of three different people from two different commands, two that went and were returned and one that eventually went.

Person #1 when arriving at the CPOA was MANY pounds (more than 30) and MANY % points (more than 15) over. Now his record showed he weighed within a week prior to departing to the academy. That individual said they didn't think they were over. That person was weighed by a JO that was just as bad. Why did the CPOA embarrass that member, I don't think they did. I believe that member embarrassed themselves and their command.

Member #2 over weight by several pounds (more than 20) and over % by more than 10, again sent home. Did the CPOA embarrass that member, nope they embarrassed themself. The standard is set before you go, if you go without meeting that standard you are the embarrassment, the CPOA did not embarrass you by sending you home for not meeting the standard.

Member #3 did not want to go, was a big guy. Yes over body weight but well under %, went to weigh prior to going and distended his stomach so that he measured over %.(he could make himself look pregnant, kinda funny in the right situation) The mess stepped up and said no way, so command remeasured and he was under % by 3-4%. He went to the CPOA and came back and thanked everyone for making him go.

Now in #1 and #2, they looked disgustingly over weight. You can't tell me those members didn't know that prior to going. They didn't gain that weight on the flight over.
So why does the CPOA re-weigh? Unfortunatly because we have commands that by their lack of military bearing and adhearance to policy require them to re-weigh people. You can call it mistrust if you wish. I will call it checks and balances to policy and standards.
I am pretty sure that if we all assumed that everyone did exactly what they were to do everytime all the time without checks and balances we would end up with alot more situations like we had on the Healy.

When was the last time you tasked someone that worked under you to do a task and did not check on them periodically? Did you check because you didn't trust them. I would hope you checked because it was your job to check and trust really didn't have a play in it. If you didn't check at all then shame on you for not being a check and balance for their work.

Sorry Greg, this entire email was not in any way intended to be directed to you. I kinda got off on a tangent a little bit. It is questions that I ask of all. Sorry as it went it looked like I was directing to you, not that way at all. I didn't realize it looked like that until I reread it. This paragraph and appology was easier than trying to re-write the whole thing. :D

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Mike, that "grandfather " clause is going away. The MCPO-CG has already asked people to step up and set the example. PACAREA has already told people to do the same. MC Isherwood has already warned people within this forum that the time is at hand. Put in when its convenient for you, or wait for orders at the convenience of the CG. I'm glad we still have people like you stepping up. Believe me, everyone can get something meaningful out of the course. Again, the class that just graduated had no empty seats. Hopefully the tide is turning.
Search around and find someone who attended and got nothing out of it. If we actually have people who know everything they should attend just to start giving something back. Enrich the careers of others with your vast experience.
Greg, there is no mistrust. Schools make people adhere to COMDT standards. I know people who were sent back from BO courses because they couldn't pass the physical fitness standards.

JP3
There is yet another difference between the CPO's of old and the CPO's of new, we are being held accountable to weight standards - everywhere.
nice try, but the conversation that we're having right now should tell you that your statement isn't actually true. And it's wasn't Chiefs that weren't being held accountable in the past, it was people of all paygrades, just like today. The only difference is we actually started hold people accountable. But there are still some getting by.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Stu,

Bill, it isn't a trust issue. Some units aren't doing the weigh ins the right way. That is being discovered and addressed at the CPOA.

OK, not a trust issue, but there appears to be a healthy wariness. If the parent command is not doing the procedure correctly then an informative note to that CO or OIC may be in order.

Then again, I have some experience in the same sort of policy. Many, many years ago I as the subject matter specialist for small arms training. I found upon taking over the program that the SAI school was requalifying people when the class convened because they felt the field folks were not running the courses correctly. I made trip to check out what was going on and found this had been built into the system to waste a couple days on the range. It had no instructive value.

The rules to attend the class required qualification BEFORE they arrived at Yorktown. What I found was the school wasn't following the rules either and were doing things their way just because they could. They were actually running a shooting school rather than an instructor training course. The old adage that to be good instructor one had to be a good shooter is bunk, just as being good CPO does not depend on weight. I rewrote the curriculm to cut this nonsense out. I also found it had been included as a continuing justification for the budget.

Frankly, I've seen many in the Coast Guard who are in need of some weight control, but sense they do not attend the CPOA they are allowed to stumble along without any hint of punitive qualification.

I don't know anyone who ever got sent back due to hypertension. You'll have to ask someone who does. This was mentioned in the CPOA threads.

If folks are overweight a couple weeks in SERE training would take care of that. It's still being held at Warner Springs, CA. I lost 10 pounds there in a week and I didn't have it to loose.

John, Oh and Bill, check the life expectancy of those Sumo and NFL players that are overweight. No one is contesting their physical abilities, but most don't live to see 40.

I suppose I could contact the NFL and get the mortality stats for their retirees. I bet the ones that did not use steroids last longer than that. Just before the Superbowl, William "The Fridge" Perry was interviewed by a local station. He is only player I know who ate himself out of job with Da Bears. He's actually "thinner" now.

High blood pressure is not something that is soley related to smoking, it is also hereditary and more frequent in African American males.{/quote]

I agree. I had half a kidney removed in 1986 and I've had to work to keep my under control ever since. However, smoking is one of the leading causes. Sprinkle a little salt on it and up you go. Of course, the stess one haves with lung cancer will certainly raise one's blood pressure.

Michael, [quote]The way I see things, the only people that can truely bash a school are the ones that attend the course!

I've run into this in academia as well. I've had people tell me you cannot write history about blacks, women, etc., unless you are one. I suppose there isn't a sole in the Coast Guard today who may speak of combat. No one has been in it since Vietnam. Well, not exactly true. A friend of mine, a commander was in Panama City when Panama was invaded, but he stayed hunkered down. I do not believe any one can know everything about something even if they were their. They only know their own narrow view of it and most of that is forgotten over time.

It's too bad that with the empty seats that we can't fill them with the retirees that don't think they have anything to gain from the experience. (I know that this will never happen).

It will not happen but look at the possibilities. Experienced people with the advantage of distance and with no 'fear' of anyone in the Coast Guard. I do believe the Coast Guard should call in some retires as guest speakers. I know Dennis Noble would be a great one. Although I was not a guest speaker for the CPOA in their classroom setting did do one presentation for the center (the CPOA paid for my trip). There were many of the CPOA class present. I am sure some got something out of it.

I bet Wray, Gary, myself and many others could have a pretty good time. Just don't make us jog or late for the fine lunches they have there.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Bill, if the person is within 5 pounds of their Maximum Allowable Weight or 1% of their body fat, they are allowed to stay. That's based on the Coast Guard's plan to safety lose one pound per week for a five week school.

I asked about what was being done to the Commands that keep having people sent back and was told that they aren't seeing people coming for only certain areas. I'm big on personal accountability. I blame the Commands for not weighing the person right, but also the individual for being over. People are getting their orders three to four months ahead of time as opposed to the three to four weeks like they were in the past. Those individuals that know that they're close, should really watch what they're doing. They get weighed once at the CPOA when it counts and that's over the first weekend. Then they can got back to worring about it twice a year.

I put on seven pounds in the 33 days I was there because the food at the galley was incredible, and we only had two seafood fridays.

During the past two classes MCPO-CG Lloyd was out there. This class is going to have alot of retirees present when they dedicate the Calhoun building.

[BMC John Phillips III]

John,

I suppose I could contact the NFL and get the mortality stats for their retirees. I bet the ones that did not use steroids last longer than that.

Bill, if you are willing to do the leg work, I saw have at it, but I just take my word for it :D As far as steroids go, no doubt they play a role, but the overweight players you mentioned are not really the position players that use or even need them. It is mostly Linebackers and positional players that were/are using them. The overweight players are mostly linemen.

I suppose there isn't a sole in the Coast Guard today who may speak of combat. No one has been in it since Vietnam. Well, not exactly true. A friend of mine, a commander was in Panama City when Panama was invaded, but he stayed hunkered down. I do not believe any one can know everything about something even if they were their. They only know their own narrow view of it and most of that is forgotten over time.

This is the part of you that intrigues me. I mean if I had to make an uneducated guess at what you are trying to tell us, it is that you have been to Vietnam and no one else has so no one but you can have an opinion on it. Then you even add that being there wasn't enough, which I want to believe is sarcasm. Maybe reading that generational literacy thing you mentioned would help me. Since it is a short book I may be able to squeeze in some time to read it.

I do believe the Coast Guard should call in some retires as guest speakers. I know Dennis Noble would be a great one. Although I was not a guest speaker for the CPOA in their classroom setting did do one presentation for the center (the CPOA paid for my trip). There were many of the CPOA class present. I am sure some got something out of it.

I can kind of see what you saying about being there and forgetting, because Dennis Noble was a guest speaker for my class and I don't remember being impressed...http://www.uscg.mil/hq/tcpet/cpoa/gradPics/class129/pages/DSC04623.htm

[AMTCM John Long]

This should not come as a surprise, it is one of the items on the TAD/PCS/any other kind of travel worksheets. It asks, does member meet min weight standards iaw COMDTINST....


John,

Funny you mentioned that. That is an older requirement on that work sheet. Unless the member is weighed on each PCS/TAD, how does one know the member IS NOT within the standard. For example, the member weighed in good in April. Member gets PCS orders to depart 1June. Can you check off that block? He/she was within standards at the last weighin. Do we need to go back to weighing everyone when they travel?

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

The difference between Today's Chiefs and the Chiefs of the Past......... all of the Chiefs of the Past combined have not posted as many pictures of themselves as our very of JP3.

[ASTC Ronny German]

So why does the CPOA re-weigh? Unfortunatly because we have commands that by their lack of military bearing and adhearance to policy require them to re-weigh people. You can call it mistrust if you wish. I will call it check