Core Values (con't)

[AMTCM John Long]

So as not to hijack the "My Space" thread anymore......

Bill,

I wouldn't get rid of them.....IMO they do have a purpose. Although in current usage they apply to all, I feel our junior people benefit the most. I believe they can be used as part of a heirarchy of guidance for the young folks. Sure we have rules, instructions, orders, UCMJ, etc. but I would put Core Values at the top. Similar to Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs and self-actualization. I'm not impying disciplinary usage (as what was being discussed on the other thread), but directional guidance. Many young folks who are hungry to succeed need something they can grasp and use as a guiding light, something they can visualize, something that can be used when no one else is around. Sounds kind of sappy, but I think to our young folks, who make up the majority of the CG, it can mean something to a few of them.

John

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I hope the MCPOCG does not get mad but I cut and pasted this from his web site

"The MCPOCG must be a living example of the Coast Guard’s core values of honor, respect, and devotion to duty."

If they are that imortant to our Senior enlisted member, we can not allow them the be tossed aside.

Long Break!

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

MC Long,

My wife and I are currently assisting a AMT "A" school single mother that just started "A" school Monday. Her binder that she carries everywhere with her has right under the AMT logo, "Honor, Respect and Devotion to Duty" on the cover.

So I would have to agree that this is something that our junior people are being instilled in their heads. Is this a bad thing? I think not. I can't remember who said it eariler, (and JPIII, I won't take credit for it either :D ) that I sit higher in my seat when I hear that "Catch phrase"!!

[BMC John Phillips III]

Mike, it was Dennis Endicott that said it (I got your back brother).

I will say it here as I did in the myspace thread.

Who was it that said, "If you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing." or is that just a meaningless slogan too?

[BMCS Burt Ford]

And I will add another quote from the MCPOCG. This is from the Jan edition of "The Chief" in the article by MCPOCG Bowen talking about leadesr and chiefs, third para from bottom.

"Your watchwords must be our core values of Honor, Respect and Devotion to Duty. These values guide our conduct, performance and decisions everyday."

Very good article and again, if it is important to him, it should be important to all chiefs, active and retired no matter thier historical value. Semper Paratus had no value unitl adotpted as pour motto. Now we have adotped these core values and they will go down in the generations to come as our core values.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

[QUOTE=GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]I am sure some person, after the Coast Guardsman's Creed was found again, went back and underlined some words but do not forget the CGm's Creed was written about 1950. Makes one wonder where it was before.QUOTE]

Wrong Bill. I won't go into the rest of your post, no time now. Our Core Values were written by CAPT Tom Taylor (Ret), and he didn't underline anything. If you want to know the history behind them, feel free to look him up.

Brett,

I moved your comment here so to keep it in context.

I don't know him nor have I seen anything that would verify this. He must have been deep into the TQM process. Perhaps you can find him and ask him to write how the process developed.

For all the protestations no one has defined them yet. Just because someone repeats them over and over does not cause them to have meaning nor does it prevent them from becoming punitive as these have.

Did no one read the paper John Long put up? It's good, but has some clues to the purpose of the so-called core values. I am disappointed there were no comments.

I would have put some up today but the site has been down all day (not the first time 0). I've got my notes at work so Monday I'll put them up.

And John L., I was wondering when someone would put up Maslow. It is a nice and neat psychological scale, but kids need more than words that no one can define. It is that personal touch and not always one of "do as I do."

John Philips, the quote you gave is not a slogan. It is a cliche.

Burt, you quoted,
"The MCPOCG must be a living example of the Coast Guard’s core values of honor, respect, and devotion to duty."

I would certainly hope they were a living example of what a MCPO should be. We've seen a couple MCPO-CG who were not.

[ETC Brian Strattard]

Bill,

As quoted below:
I am taken aback by some comments. I am simply providing the "unvarnished truth" to the situation and hopefully will provoke a little thought and some study. Do not confuse constructive comment with condensation.

I am going to disagree with this statement. I do not think that you are playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion. I think that you have a problem with the concept of our Core Values, which can easily be seen in articles you have written in the past.

Honor, Respect and Devotion to Duty -- by William R. Wells 1999 (http://www.aug.edu/~libwrw/Articles/mariner.pdf)

The Coast Guard: Culturally Overboard? - by William R. Wells 1994 (http://www.aug.edu/~libwrw/Articles/overboard.pdf)

In both articles you have made it clear that you have never agreed with OUR core values...and I do mean OUR values and not the Coast Guard's values because I have a sense of ownership in MY Coast Guard. I saw this is something you never understood when I read your comment regarding the MCPOCG using OUR and not the Coast Guard's values. If you truly believe that the Coast Guard is losing it's character since your watch...then no one will convince you otherwise. I never worry about departing a unit because I KNOW that I have prepared them to carry on without me. You should feel confident that today's watch is carrying on the same missions as before and taking on more responsibilities while we're at it. The Coast Guard was the saving grace in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, since 9-11 we have been in Iraq and the persian gulf, we have expanded to a more aggressive homeland security mission making sure that all of our ports and waterways are secure from the threat of terrorists. The following article is a good argument for the Core Values of all the services. It provides an arguement for the substance of our Core Values and why they are a positive factor for our service.

The Foundations of the Core Values in Western Ethical Theories (http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE99/Wingrove99.html)

Strat sends...

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Tying core values to TQM and insinuating that TQM was an abject failure is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. There is good and bad with most things. The Coast Guard is continually evolving and someone cannot accept that, then that is tough. Just because someone does not like the idea of having "core values" is not reason to challange them. The fact is, they provide something for us to stand for. Many of the young folks coming into the service may need something to stand for. As far as them being punitive... The UCMJ has all the punitive that I need. I may use the core values to correct a course before the the UCMJ needs to be called upon, and if that is "punitive" then so be it. I don't think having someone provide training on the core values that has said or done something that they should not have as a bad thing.
Last I heard, this was still an all volunteer organization. If someone does not want to support what it stands for, then they have the option of opting out. If you don't like what we stand for, take your toys and go home, but don't throw mud on what I hold dear.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Bill, back peddle all you what......it's condesending. Referring to the Coast Guard's core values as the "so-called" values .....is condesending. Placing those of us who support them in a position to have to explain or define that support to you....is condesending. Trying to put others on the defense...is condesending.
I can't define the the Coast Guard's core values to you any better than the others have tried over the past 17 years. You don't want to hear it. But don't try to pass this off as your attempt to enlight those of us who are less informed.....that comes off as condesending.

And to save you time in the future.......If you read something that Brett Ayers posts, you've already seen something to verify it. If you missed what it was, read his post again. If Brett states it as fact, you can rest assured that its a fact. That's the unvarnished truth. Questioning his integrity and tasking him to follow up on something for you......kinda comes off as condesending.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

The Foundations of the Core Values in Western Ethical Theories (http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE99/Wingrove99.html)


Strat, Thanks for the link to the last piece. Of course, the guy who wrote was fired because of his lack of core values. Ironic ain't it.

Say what you will, but I put my comments in print. I did notice that you had no comment about the Jon McManis incident. Show me the core values in the action of the MCPOCG at that time? Most just pussy foot around it.

One thing you, and others, have forgotten. The so-called core values are inventions of a management system that is only marginally still in place. Also, I am an outside observer of them having not been part of Korporate Kulture lead by a Directorate Kommisar of Korrect Thinking.

Have you read the article John Long put up. I'll read the one you posted this evening.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill, back peddle all you what......it's condesending. Referring to the Coast Guard's core values as the "so-called" values .....is condesending. Placing those of us who support them in a position to have to explain or define that support to you....is condesending. Trying to put others on the defense...is condesending.
I can't define the the Coast Guard's core values to you any better than the others have tried over the past 17 years. You don't want to hear it. But don't try to pass this off as your attempt to enlight those of us who are less informed.....that comes off as condesending.

I beg to differ. I do want to hear what they mean. I've been asking for those 17 years and, as you noted, no one can explain them. Putting people on the defense is not my aim. My aim is to acquire knowledge. I put students on the defense because it is part of the learning process. You do it as well. People sure of themselves are very difficult to be put on the defensive. It is the confidence of professionalism.

Quite the opposite about the less informed. In this case I am the less informed and have asked those "in the know" to bring me up to speed. However, it is begining to appear that the people who should know don't know either. After 17 years, why not?

And to save you time in the future.......If you read something that Brett Ayers posts, you've already seen something to verify it. If you missed what it was, read his post again. If Brett states it as fact, you can rest assured that its a fact. That's the unvarnished truth. Questioning his integrity and tasking him to follow up on something for you......kinda comes off as condesending.

An old newspaper adage is "get your facts but verify." I've asked him to verify his statement about the origin. It should not be difficult for him. He should have put up a direct quote or a paper source. I've been in the historical business far to long to simply take someone's word for anything. If this captain was the originator of the core values then why is this information missing for any official Coast Guard web site. We know who wrote Semper Paratus the motto and the song as well as the Coast Guardsman's Creed. I'd just like some verification for his statement.

It is as when we boarded all those "down-east" fishing vessels;
"Well cap, ya got your life jackets?"
"A-up, they down below."
"Gotta see 'em cap."
"A-up."

[BMC John Phillips III]

OK, I am guilty of either feeding the troll or trying to convert him.

Brett,

I moved your comment here so to keep it in context.

I don't know him nor have I seen anything that would verify this. He must have been deep into the TQM process. Perhaps you can find him and ask him to write how the process developed.

For all the protestations no one has defined them yet. Just because someone repeats them over and over does not cause them to have meaning nor does it prevent them from becoming punitive as these have.

Did no one read the paper John Long put up? It's good, but has some clues to the purpose of the so-called core values. I am disappointed there were no comments.

I would have put some up today but the site has been down all day (not the first time 0). I've got my notes at work so Monday I'll put them up.

And John L., I was wondering when someone would put up Maslow. It is a nice and neat psychological scale, but kids need more than words that no one can define. It is that personal touch and not always one of "do as I do."

John Philips, the quote you gave is not a slogan. It is a cliche.

Burt, you quoted,
"The MCPOCG must be a living example of the Coast Guard’s core values of honor, respect, and devotion to duty."

I would certainly hope they were a living example of what a MCPO should be. We've seen a couple MCPO-CG who were not.
For a writer claiming not to be condescending, your writing needs work. I boldened all the words or groups of words for you so you can see how you are coming off. This post is full of assumptions, fallacies and argumentative drivel (or rhetoric if I were to try and be condescending myself).

You just don't get it, if you are truly trying to convince, educate or even just trying to involk some meaningful type of discussion, then surely you should be able to do it much more eloquently and with a little more of "respect" than you have to date. Perhaps the reason you haven't yet is due to the fact that Master Chief Slesh is right, you're trying to piss on the Coast Guard, our Commandant, our Core Values and in this post, MCPOCG's (now past and present).

You are the perfect example of why I was initially against retirees coming to this board. Some retirees and you fit the bill perfectly(no pun intended), think that they are above everyone because they are retired and no longer in anyone's Chain of Command. Here is how I differ from you, I am in a Chain of Command, and I gladly serve, with Honor, Respect and Devotion to that Chain of Command, who embody the Core Values that I hold dear, the same Core Values you are pissing on. If I retired tomorrow, I would have nothing but good things to say about my Chain of Command, just as I do today (that's called loyalty and credibility). Like the Core Values, every word is just a word until people put meaning behind them, this is demonstrated through your words and actions. Your words here, are steadily losing their meaning and your credibility is slowly washing down the drain.

Finally, I am confident in my professional abilities, but I am very territorial and protective of the things that I hold dear, so your theory (which I see as damage control again - backtracking if you will) is a bad one. If you want to classify this post as me going on the defensive, it would be for the reasons I just mentioned, not because of any lack of confidence.

[ETC Brian Strattard]

Bill,

I had no comment about the MCPO McManis becuase it was before my time. So far the only version that I know about it is what you wrote, as impassionate as it seems...I know better than to take one person's views on the matter as fact. You may be right...He may bave gotten a raw deal...I don't know...but as the evolution of our Coast Guard culture...I would have expected a MASTER CHIEF to step back from a command when he is obviously having personal issues, that would have avoided having a command being taken away. Having other allegations at the same time points to other issues that would not have been common knowledge to the rest of the Guard. So the award manual didn't state the newly minted Core Values in the award requirements...the Coast Guard evolves and the senior leadership decided that it should be encorporated into highly visible awards. Sometimes we as leaders need to make tough decisions...and being human...all of our decisions are not always correct. Even if the MCPOCG made the wrong decision or didn't handle it as tactfully as he could have, why does that effect my generation's views on the core values...didn't you write about how MCPO McManis worked to redeem himself? Isn't it ironic that you see the Core Values in one situation and fail to see the redemption that the generations since has carried OUR Core Values with? Even the cadet survey indicated that MY generation has been making improvements to how OUR Core Values are viewed throughout the fleet. It's time to let go of the backseat driving and monday morning quarterbacking and enjoy the ride/show. Feel good that Myself and my brothers and siters in blue have the watch even with our slogans and Korporate Agendas...Do yor part by keeping the history and traditions alive and leave the evolution of the Coast Guard to US.


Strat sends...

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Brian,

Let's say the phones were ringing during the "ex post facto" punitive usage of the Core Values.

Although the thought expressed at the time from the MCPO-CG that no one should be honored who didn't uphold the Core Values was summarily dismissed for political expediency less than a decade later when naming two CG cutters.

That my friend is the example of hypocracy observed by some who knew of the McMannis incident.

The only reason you have one version is because only one has researched it and no opposing views have been published under someone's name.

As for my belief ... MCPO McMannis got a raw deal and was handled not in the standards I was accustomed to during my time as a Chief. No Chief, yesteryear or in the future would want to experience the same thing.

The one who replaced the MCPO is said to have worn an identification stating ... Politically Correct Ancient Mariner ... at least that was the scuttlebutt I've read on the other forums when this incident raises it's head.

[ETC Brian Strattard]

Joe,

Maybe that's the nature of the beast...that every few years there is a new person in charge with their own ideas of how to run things :confused: . Some MCPOCGs/COMDTs are good at playing the political game, others are not. Some are adept at dealing with the organization some are not. I don't think that lumping the Coast Guard as a whole under two seperate commands is a fair shake. I just don't like to be held accountable for mistakes that were made before I was even out of high school...

I value the past so I don't repeat the mistakes of those that came before me...but I would rather be blamed for the mistakes I make on my own and not for ones that were made before I was even a part of this fine service.

Strat sends...

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Brian,

Everyone wants to be blamed for their very own mistakes and not the misdeeds of others.

I think everyone would learn a little more if the wall of seperation [new guard / old guard] would crumble under the pressure of the truth ... my guard, with my being everyone who wore the uniform.

This is one of the hot button topic when the two coast guards get together around this virtual water cooler. No one wants to be summarily dismissed in these threads and the two coast guards need to settle down and join my coast guard.

I wish someone with an opposing view would research the incident and publish ... if even on the web ... something under their own name. Better yet, publish something in any of the naval magazines. Hopefully that will be done before the principle players are no longer vertical on this earth. From what I've discussed at the time of the incident, I would be very biased because of the "ex post facto" application. That violates the tenets of the Constitution of the United States, a document we all swore to support and defend.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

[quote] Like the Core Values, every word is just a word until people put meaning behind them, this is demonstrated through your words and actions. Your words here, are steadily losing their meaning and your credibility is slowly washing down the drain.

John, I will not point out the logic problems in your post. However, I am glad you highlighted my comments because you have only confined the truthfulness of them. You don't know the difference between a slogan and cliche.

I am glad to see you have come to the realization that the so called core values have no meaning. You acknowledge there is no meaning behind them which makes them worse than a slogan.

Finally, I am confident in my professional abilities, but I am very territorial and protective of the things that I hold dear, so your theory (which I see as damage control again - backtracking if you will) is a bad one. If you want to classify this post as me going on the defensive, it would be for the reasons I just mentioned, not because of any lack of confidence.

Territorialism is an animal instinct and cannot be avoided until some intellectual insight is gained. I am sure the CPOA does not teach any one to be territorial that would not be part of the team training. I used to be as you. Then I woke up and began not accepting everything that was fed me because I was told it was good for me. I believe this occured in 1964 when I made PO3.

Brian,

So the award manual didn't state the newly minted Core Values in the award requirements...the Coast Guard evolves and the senior leadership decided that it should be encorporated into highly visible awards.

This is the point. How may someone be punished for something that was not in the rules. We don't see the Coast Guard stripping the current Ancient Mariner for failing in the requirement to preserve the traditions of the sea going service. Nope, it is just overlooked. Is not performing one's obligations a violation of the core values? I wonder about this everytime I hear a CPO call a ship a boat or use or do something contrary to the traditional culture.

When I wrote the piece I made numerous inquires for information. Officially, the Coast Guard was very mum about it. However, I did obtain emails and other documentation, including a Navy Times article that had Jon's brother, a navy HMC, who felt the Coast Guard was wrong.

Jon was not having problems with his 82. A couple of the crew made false accusations that were never proved. They had hard time with him because he was a competent OIC and did not take their guff. Jon was having marital problems but many have these and continue to do their jobs.

If you noticed in the article, he acknowledged his removal and worked hard to redeem himself which he did in an outstanding way including being nonminted to as a MCPO-CG candidate. The Coast Guard was supposed to honor redemptiong, but instead the Coast Gaurd kicked him in the teeth. Some core values. The MCOP-CG not only abused the system he broke Coast Guard regulations, as a MCPO in an email reminded him, by publically annoucing the reason for the removal. Why was this allowed?

It does not matter if it happened in the past. What matters is that it happened at all and will again in the future. This was deciding moment that failed to pass the test if the core values were real ideals or if they were simple sloganeering. The fact they became an element and instrument of punishment negated any potential of good they may have had on the Coast Guard.

Perhaps the punishment element is why the cannot be definded. There is psychological confusion over whether they are positive but also negative. Unlike the UCMJ which is negative all the time therefore understandable. The Janus look of core values causes only uncertainty and confusion.

Remember in The Matrix when Morpheus described the blue and red pills? In a form the core values are purple pills that put people some where in waking to believe what ever you want or deep in the rabbit hole.

Look at the article John Long posted (of which no one has commented upon as yet) the issue of morals comes up. However, is it moral to give great philosophical speeches about the worthiness of core values but used them as whips? Remember, to use a cook metaphor, goodness is at the bottom of the pot. What we have on the top is water downed and only passable. So are the core values just a euphemism for judgement and punishment?

Should we pepper our people with meaningless words?

[ETC Brian Strattard]

Bill,

You know what's weird...I was watching the Matrix today and thought to myself...hmmm...the main characters were fighting for what they believed in...their freedom...their core value...funny that you just mentioned the same movie but from another perspective... :p

Joe was right when he said that the known facts are from just one side. I will wait to pass judgement until I know both sides of the story.

I think that the biggest difference is that in today's society, it is a lot easier to make a mountain out of a mole hill. You cannot have something like a command get taken away and not have the entire Guard talking about it. Like when we lost two shipmates recently...there was speculation flying around and the results had to be published. I had read in on of your posts, forgive me if I can't find it right now (you post a lot Bill) that no Commandant would give an able bodied seaman command of a ship in today's world as had been done in the past. That is most likely because the media would find out, and cause a campaign of public outrage that would certainly spell doom for that Commandant. Especially now that we are at the forefront of the dept of H.S...we need people in iconic and leadership positions that do not detract or distract from the many missions we currently are undertaking. It may be politics but it is a game that must be played, however it can be played while we are adhering to our Core Values...

This will probably be the last I will speak on this issue of our Core Values. I don't expect to hear Bill utter the words; I was wrong...and no one will ever hear me utter the words; our Core Values are meaningless...so lets agree to disagree Bill and leave it at that. ;)

Strat sends...

[BMC John Phillips III]

because you have only confined the truthfulness of them.

I am glad to see you have come to the realization that the so called core values have no meaning. You acknowledge there is no meaning behind them which makes them worse than a slogan.


Bill, you are one of a kind for sure. This post is just plain idiotic. I put that in bold because apparently you notice the bold text.

STOP referring to the Core Values as SO CALLED and saying they have no meaning, you are driving away posters, readers and potential members and you are offending those that put the meaning behind the words. I know this to be a fact as I just had an active duty Master Chief that I ran into out on the town, tell me he read where you said it and added, "that is why I don't post on forums like that one." You are single handedly turning this site into Fred's Place or would you have us all just call it "bills Place?"

[BMC John Phillips III]

http://www.csoonline.com/opinion/comments/1029.html

Bill have you ever championed a cause that you were not directly involved in? Serious question.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Bill, .....I'm starting to wonder if you even listen to yourself........

Is not performing one's obligations a violation of the core values? I wonder about this everytime I hear a CPO call a ship a boat.......

Did you somehow equate being relieved for cause with calling a ship a boat? Are you wrapped that tight?

And Bill.....false accusations can never be proven..........they're false.

Wouldn't most people see having several members of your crew making false accusations about you a problem in itself ? Wouldn't that tell you that you do have problems on your 82'?

I am however blown away that someone's brother would defend them in a newspaper article. That in itself has to mean that they're innocent.

As for everything else you said,......I think your Matrix analogy summed it all up for me. I was absolutely shocked that you managed to take yet another pop shot at the CPOA.......didn't see that one coming. And maybe if you call them so-called and meaningless three more times and click your heels together you can finally get yourself to believe it and move on in your life. I don't see you making any converts here.

This is also cute.....
It does not matter if it happened in the past. What matters is that it happened at all and will again in the future.
.....so I guess history isn't everything.........you're back to foretelling the future. That's good to know. Kinda keeps everything in perspective. Once time proves you right, the rest of us can lament that we weren't the sheep you painted us as, and we didn't heed your warnings. Until then, the people competing for Ancient Mariner should probably just watch their backs. I'm not in the running, nor will I ever be. I've been on record calling ships, boats for too long. I'll seal my fate now by saying that I'm going back afloat in June when I get to my next boat.
Ships, ....Boats,.......Cutters........... talk about meaningless words..........

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

... I just had an active duty Master Chief that I ran into out on the town, tell me he read where you said it and added, "that is why I don't post on forums like that one."

The question is ... was this MCPO an active poster before or is he using Bill Wells as a convenient excuse not to post?

Brian, I doubt anyone would step up to publish the other view of the McMannis incident. Some would rather just dismiss the issue than attempt to let the truth see the light of day ... and I'm sure elements of Bill's conclusion is true.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Who was it that said, "If you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing." or is that just a meaningless slogan too?


JPIII, I beleive the original quote was "if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything"

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

I'm going to take exception to one thing that JP3 wrote. Bill Wells is not driving away membership nor is he turning this board into Fred's Place. He is stating his opinion in an open forthright manner. That's what we want.

I don't think that I would like this man (should I ever meet him) and I don't agree with most of what he writes, but he has added some heat to this board. We needed that.

You have two choices: 1) Argue with him, or 2) Don't argue with him.

People shy away from this discussion board because they are uncomfortable stating their opinion in a public forum. It has nothing to do with any of the members.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Joe, I'll say what I've said in the past....... that truth will never come out. Bill might have elements of the truth, but his delivery prevents many people from even looking at what he's saying. I don't know what actually happened, but none of us do. We have recent RFCs that go down and no one hears what actually happened. Then the lines are drawn. Their friends rally to their aid and adamently claim that their friend did little or nothing wrong.
Should they have invented a reason not to recognize someone who met the written standard ? Absolutely not. If he was the one who met the requirements, he should have been recognized. Since he wasn't, should we act like he never did anything wrong in the first place ? Absolutely not. And Bill has stated that there was no problems on the 82. He was relieved for cause. He had his chance to fight that claim, and he lost. He worked to redeem himself ? That makes someone on the outside looking in think that he knew he did things wrong.
Does this somehow defunct the Coast Guard Core Values ? Absolutely not.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

You have two choices: 1) Argue with him, or 2) Don't argue with him.

Exactly.. and that goes for anyone on any board... There are several on Military.com (Fred no longer owns Fred'sPlace, he is just a site manager) that have yet to learn that.

Excellent advise Dennis....

Wray.. :cool:
P.S. Fred's Place doesn't have any discussion boards, he just has an out of control Bulletin Board.

[BMC John Phillips III]

People shy away from this discussion board because they are uncomfortable stating their opinion in a public forum. It has nothing to do with any of the members.

Well Dennis, that may be true and I won't put any words in anyone else's mouth nor will I try to speculate about what their reasoning might be. I am only going by what they told me and I have heard on more than one occasion from people that I tried to get to join this mess, that they looked at it as "gossip" or there were people that saying things such as the example that I used that turned them off to it. I guess one positive is that they have at one point, read the board.

Oh and as far as the Master Chief I used in my example, he is anything but shy about stating his opinion in public.

I will take the advice of others hear and not argue with Bill. Even though I don't see it as arguing, I see it as more of trying to get through to him. I have slowly come to the conclusion that that is not possible. I just don't think I can idly stand by and watch him degrade our "Core Values."

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

This used to be full of PRODUCTIVE discussion. Now recently, it has become more tabloid and DESTRUCTIVE. Folks that have retired and now have a bone to pick. Obsolete arguments to make... This does not lead to productive change. This does not lead to productive anything other than arguing. I have not seen any "rules" for the new paid mess portion of this site but I imagine that many of these same discussions will be started and carried out by the same people behind the closed door. I for one am certainly evaluating my participation in this mess for that very reason. If I don't find it productive, it is not worth my time.
Active Duty Jim sends...

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

So many off topic discussions.

Dennis, I am sure you would like me. I'm really soft and fuzzy. However, what you see is debate. As you said join the discussion or not.

John Philips asks, "Bill have you ever championed a cause that you were not directly involved in? Serious question."

Sure. Until I wrote about the Point Welcome no one knew or cared about. Once it hit the streets everyone jumped on the band wagon. There are several other things I am working on that are in progress and behind the scenes. Not all that I do is from personal involvment. Why, I am currently assisting a researcher in London locate more information about four blacks seized from the revenue cutter James Madison 1812. This research will help expand the knowledge of blacks in the early service.

I'll also be flippin' burgers in a week for a student activities function on campus. When I retire and can donate more time I'll be teaching people to read.

What do you do that you are not involved?

Stuart, "Did you somehow equate being relieved for cause with calling a ship a boat? Are you wrapped that tight?"

Yep, it makes perfect sense. If the person selected for the honor (even though they incorrectly wear a LHS hat for it) does not live up to the charter of the honor then they should be relieved of the honor. It should be passed on to someone who will. It is no difference than an RFC. They violated the core values and their promise to uphold the functions of the honor. Isn't honor one of the catch words? Is not respect the respect of the position? Is not devotion to duty that element that ensures the job will be done?


If someone can be ruled unfit for not living up to the core values then cannot these same values be used to remove someone from a position? Don't forget dead people have been denied and honor because something in thier past did not "live up to the core values?" However, other dead people have been honored but thier conduct did not fit the values either. Do you not see the hypocrisy?

Of course, this hypocrisy is because the values have no definable meaning and they are now punitive.

"And Bill.....false accusations can never be proven..........they're false."

I disagree. False accusations have been proven thousands of times in history. The most infamous is the Captain Alfred Dreyfus affair. There have been hundreds of people released from prison following a turn over of their false convictions. No, false accusations can be and have been proven.

In the case of Jon, he was relieved for cause based on false accusations thereby the accusations were proven enough to relieve him. Has there not been other OICs in the same position? It doesn't happen to officers much because the accusations are, generally, not false. Which brings up the issue of the punitive nature of the core values.

If someone is relieved for cause on the issue of not being in tune with the core values what does that mean? Does this mean the true meaning of the core values are instruments of punishment? Are they part of social engineering?

Also Stuart, "I am however blown away that someone's brother would defend them in a newspaper article. That in itself has to mean that they're innocent."

The sarcasm doesn't work. You haven't read the article have you?

I would also like to state that everyone is waiting for someone to write a rebuttal piece. Perhaps someone at the CPOA should do it. They could do it as a case study. Frankly, I don't believe they will find much different from mine. The issue remains that the MCPO-CG and the Commandant violated the core values by using them in the way they did. The issue was personally motivated and it was an abuse of power which is not only in violation of the core values but of Coast Guard Regulations and policy.

Jon worked to redeem himself becaue of the RFC that came from the false accusations. Did you miss the part where he was sent TAD to another 82' as the OIC? Someone trusted him.

"Bill might have elements of the truth, but his delivery prevents many people from even looking at what he's saying. "

How so Stuart? What in my "delivery," whatever that means, prevents others from doing the research? It is a free country. What I do does not prevent anyone from doing anything. I know this is how I view such things. What other people do is of no concern to me. If they publish, I will read what they write and carry on. That is pure American individualism, the heart and soul of our country. Can't be sheepish.

Speaking being sheepish, I have no idea why the MCPO John Philips knows is prevented from posting here. If he is as John claims then he is the type people would want here. Someone to rebutt and debate.

John, I don't want you to argue with me either. I would like to see you actually discuss or debate something in a way that is not cliche borne or some CG-speak phamplet. Be yourself. Give your own opinion. Others do and it does not hurt at all.


Brian, The folks in the Matrix we not fighting for any philosophical concepts. They were fighting for thier existence. There is a difference.

How dull life would be if everyone agreed. I certainly hope everyone does not agree with this.;)

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Jim-
There must be Chiefs in your local Mess that you do not like. They must say things that irritate you. Did you decide to stop going to the Chief's Calls or the CPOA meetings?
I'm having a hard time understanding how one member can alienate you from all of the discussions occuring on this board. If this were a physical Chief's Mess, you would simply walk away from this character and talk to someone else. Do the same here!

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Jim writes about people with

Obsolete arguments to make...

I do not understand this comment. Are the core values obsolete?

My arguement, in the discussion sense, is that the core values are a grouping of meaningless attributes that were created in a spate of managerial experimentation. Unable to simply can them, the Coast Guard continues to elevate them to some high position as if they were issued by the Oracle of Delphi. Heck, the Coast Guard didn't even kill a goat to get them.

Also to recap, the core values have become punitive which negates any possibility of them ever being effective "moral" tools for the betterment of the Coast Guard. Recall, it was the very highest reaches of the Coast Guard that shifted the emphasis of the core values from uplifting sentiments for individual improvement to instruments of organizational control. The Coast Guard did not need the latter; there was plenty of that in place already. It could be the Core Values will replace the UCMJ and the UCMJ will revert to the Rocks and Shoals.

I have provided numerous points for you and John to discuss but if you leave you will have no voice at all. It is your choice. Leave and allow your preceived opposition to have the field of victory or remain and continue to oppose.

I know Stuart will think this is a "slam" on the CPOA , but hanging in there should be something taught at the CPOA. Perhaps it is, but I've not seen it these discussions or those in other venues.

Don't leave on my account. Find another reason but please don't blame it on me.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Bill, I think the problem with you and 'getting' the Core Values is that you are living in the past and trying to apply them to everything that you "knew" about the Coast Guard. When I apply them to everything I "know" about the Coast Guard they work perfectly for me and every Coast Guardsman and women that I know. The problem lies in the few Coasties that do not live by these values. You see the Core Values as a tool used against those that don't live by them. I see them as a guide, moral values, and principles that the good Coasties can use to live by, on and off duty. Sometimes when people do the wrong thing, you know the wrong things that people can do....it's hard to describe (for some anyway) what they did. Sometimes it's easier to say that their actions simply, weren't in accordance with the Core Values. Does that sit well with you? Obviously not, does it sit well with me? You may be surprised to hear me say, "No." Take any relief for cause where the dirty laundry list of details is not released to all hands. Call it political correctness or whatever you want, I call it protecting the guilty. Disguising their wrong doings as a violation or lack of Core Values doesn't take away from the Core Values at all, not in my mind, it may take away from the authority reprimanding the violators.

And to answer your question, I never championed anything that didn't affect me, but I also don't ride around on a high horse pretending to save the world and disquising it as some just cause in which I have absolutely nothing to gain. Are you sure you want to go with the POINT WELCOME? Aren't you always talking about how you were Vietnam? Well I guess you weren't on her, but there's still a pretty good connection there. I mean how many Coasties can say they were in Vietnam? I am sure you know the answer.

I don't think you are getting the reason that some would turn away. I know in your mind you are doing absolutely nothing wrong. Think of it like this, you are a casual reader of threads here (or maybe even just a first time viewer), the first thread you look at is titled "Core Values (Con't)," you don't start looking at the thread from the beginning, you just click on the most recent post. The first thing you read is some retired guy referring to the Core Values as "so called." Ok, maybe that person should read on or from the beginning, but the thread again is titled "Con't" so some might naturally jump to the conclusion that if they kept reading, that's the type of BS they would find.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

JP3-
You're treading dangerous waters. If you tell Bill to edit his opinions, you may as well trash the entire discussion board. Even if he is wrong, his argument presents an opportunity for others to address his comments.

Truth doesn't lay in the facts. It lay in the discusson of those facts.

If the only reason you contribute to this board is to find like-minded Chiefs to confirm your own beliefs, then you are doing yourself and us a great disservice.

However, I don't think that is the case. I've seen you argue an unpopular point and stick with your guns. Allow Bill to do the same.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Core values can only be construed as punitive if you look at them in the negative. They are simply "DO's". UCMJ is certainly punitive. It is "DON'T's". The Coast Guard that I joined was one where people with character were willing to risk their life to save the life of another. The Coast Guard that I joined was one where the members loved their country and were willing to defend it against enemy's that would bring it down, such as dope smugglers. The Coast Guard that I joined was one where people were willing to leave their families to go clean up a giant mess that was left after the Exxon Valdez fiasco. The Coast Guard that I joined was one where the members saw words like "Honor, Respect, Devotion to Duty" as words to live by. As words to aspire too. As words that were fundamental to the character that they wanted to develop within themselves.
Bill, I am sorry that you see the Coast Guard's core values as punitive. I am sorry that you see our system as some sort of communitst organization. But I am not sorry that you are retired. I am not sorry that you are bringing that sort of attitude to our junior people. To do so would be to undermine the things that today's Coast Guard stands for. Tell me this, Bill, what violation of the UCMJ is NOT a violation of the Coast Guard's core values?

Dennis, If I don't like a movie I walk out. I don't always agree with everyone in the mess. What we do is respect each other. We do not trash the institution that we work for. If someone had the balls to walk into our mess and trash the core values, they would be dismissed. We make every effort to be productive. Do we always agree? NO. Do we speak with one voice? YES.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Bill, I need a map to follow your logic........
to recap your arguement...... the core values are meaningless because thirteen years ago, more or less, two people used them to prevent someone from recieving the recognition he deserved. Because this happened, they now lack, and never had any credibility. Is that your stance?

Now.......false accusation can not be proven true. If they are, the accusation had to be true also. People are falsely convicted. But that's because other people decided to believe what they were told. That doesn't mean that that the false accusations were proven.

My sarcasm doesn't work for you, because you weren't the intended audience. I didn't read the article, and it wouldn't change my stance. Could what the brother reported be used in a court of law? What did he talk about? Was he there when the accusations surfaced? Did he have an active part in it. Was he stationed at the same unit? If not everything is heresay.

No one Bill.....not one person....has ever be taken to Mast or Courtsmartial for violating the Coast Guard's Core values. The Core Values are not a negative or punitive thing. They are a positive thing. When you place someone on report, you need to list the UCMJ Art that they violated. During the investagation, each element of that Artricle has to be met in order to properly continue to the punitive stages. As Jim tried to point out, which you will no doubt ignore, is that no violation of the UCMJ could have been committed if the person in question followed the Coast Guard's Core Values.

It's about the delivery here Bill. You started this whole thing slamming on the Core Values and anyone who believes in them. After Dennis' comments you shifted gears as if you were somehow trying to enlight us to a misuse of justice that happened years ago. If would be like me walking in to work and telling everyone in the shop that their mothers are whores, and then saying that I used that as a tool to make them think about all the wonderful things that their mothers have done for them. I just put them on the defensive to make them think. If you wanted to talk about the case you should have just started a thread about it.

And with your "Oh look a baby wolf" diversionary tactics........ Calling a ship a boat, and wearing the proper uniform are two very different things. I'll ask you again, do you equate being relieved for cause and calling a ship a boat on the same level?
I've known of lots of people who were relieved for cause. I've only heard of one (1) that wasn't justified. I've only ever heard of one person who it turned out, didn't actually do what they thought he did.
Every other one, the people closest to it, weren't surprised that it happened. Innocence people don't tend to lay down and take it with these things. I don't know the facts surrounding the case you keep bringing up. But I have to believe, that if the person who was relieved, spent a fraction of the the energy fighting it as you have done rehashing it over the past thirteeen years, he wouldn't have been relieved in the first place.
You talk about leaving the field of battle ? I know people who would have demanded a Courtsmartial, so they could have continued the battle in a more formal setting. Innocent people that settle for the injustice, aren't living up to those Core Values.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

That was a good post, Stu. Long...but good.

Bill- you need to acknowledge that the Core Values were never used in the list of offenses during any CM or Mast. Do you so acknowledge?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

The core values are in place as a type of moral barometer. They are values that those serving need to live by on and off duty. They define who we are as people. If your own personal values are not in line with the CG core values, then you have to reconcile those differences.

As far as a meaning...they mean different things to different people. We could look up the CG's definition, but it's best left up to each individual to define them on their own.

It's hard for me to believe that anyone lives their life without some type of personal values...that's all the CG core values are...how could that be a bad thing?

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

The Core Values may have never been used punitively in an Article 15 or a Courts Martial.

The Core Values being used punitively elsewhere is akin to the RFC.

I understand the "moral" arguement concerning Core Values. Even though I agree with the tenets of the Core Values, I still disagree with their "ex post facto" application.

Are the Core Values codified in the various awards, as that former MCPO-
CG once indicated? The mere fact, assuming it is a fact, that they are codified lends to the arguement they can be punitive.

As far as the MCPO who was disrespected, the Commandant was the District Commander who relieved the MCPO in the earlier years. As in most RFCs, the lost faith and confidence tagline was used.

Even in the recent RFCs, that tagline has spurred debate and not all the facts were ever presented.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

This will be a long post because of multiple responses.
ROUND 1. - John P.

First John states, "I think the problem with you and 'getting' the Core Values is that you are living in the past and trying to apply them to everything that you "knew" about the Coast Guard."

You are partly correct. I do have personal experience with the pre-Core Values Coast Guard on which to contrast and compare the post-Core Values Coast Guard. However, I know the past cannot be repeated and in this case it is unfortunate. You, and others, continue to ignore why and how the core values came about. To repeat, they came about a part of the TQM plan that called for "creating values" for the organization. This may have been appropriate for civilian organizations with such things, but all the armed forces had them for a couple hundred years and their values were based upon the values of European armed services that spent several hundred years developing them. This is why the current set is artificial and this artificiality is one reason they were so easily transformed into punitive remarks.

John then gave us a personal testimony, " When I apply them to everything I "know" about the Coast Guard they work perfectly for me and every Coast Guardsman and women that I know. The problem lies in the few Coasties that do not live by these values. You see the Core Values as a tool used against those that don't live by them. I see them as a guide, moral values, and principles that the good Coasties can use to live by, on and off duty."

This is fine. If you hold them a something personal then this is your personal interpertation. Some people follow Jesus for the same thing. Others follow other things and people. It is interesting John brings up the "moral" aspects of the values. No where in the TQM template are morals noted. Morality in the corporate world is something left to the individual. However, it does bring up the article John Long posted where morality is cited for the core values.

The author made two distinct comments,

The core values provide a central piece in the moral compasses of Coast Guard members no matter where they are located or how they are serving others.

and

Another important benefit of having core values articulated is that they guide all members in making ethical decisions and thus help reinforce the behavior desired by the Coast Guard. Coast Guard people make ethical decisions every day in the performance of their duties. Whether interacting with each other or the public it serves, ethics is almost always part of the equation. The core values provide a "framework for moral reasoning" (Myers) that is needed to address what may many times be complex ethical dilemmas. Kidder identified categories of challenging ethical dilemmas, including truth versus loyalty, individual versus community, short-term versus long-term, and justice versus mercy (Kidder, 18). All of these have applicability to those performing Coast Guard missions. A sound understanding of the core values assists in the resolution of these and other ethical challenges.

For those without wide ranging knowledge of the Coast Guard's culture a core element is missed. This article was written at the Coast Guard academy. The Coast Guard officer corps has always been paternalistic and since the last half of the nineteenth century has been made up of people for the north and northeast (as defined in 1865). These people imposed their own, somewhat puritanical, outlook on the service. These core values are simply an extention of those regional and cultural values and used to impose it all on the Service as a whole. A noted historian once told me the officer corps (that did not want a professional enlisted corps until the mid-1930s) is merely trying to make enlisted people (and those officers not from the north) in their own image.

It is not as far fetched as you make think. Have you ever asked why the CGA was moved to New London from Arundel Cove?
Even today the predominate attendees follow the regional make up of the nineteenth century. This is why the CGA used cadets to spy upon the cutters they served. The testing officials did not trust the cutter crews nor their officers. The CGA sent out zealots into the great unwashed masses not to educate or teach but to report on them.


OK, about Vietnam. Sure, I was in Vietnam but three years after the Point Welcome incident. I barely knew of the incident until we were decommissioning the division and an officer and myself were detailed to burn classified information. Among the information was the file on the Point Welcome that I read while other papers were burning. I wished I had taken it. I thought there would have been a dublicate file at CGHQ but there was not.

My purpose of writing the article was to provide information to the public (the article was published in a private journal) information about the incident of "Friendly Fire" and the Coast Guard's work in Vietnam. I have written three other articles about the Coast Guard in Vietnam as well. I heard from many non-Coast Guard people thanking me for the articles. They had no idea the Coast Guard was in Vietnam. It is a matter of public information. Ask Steve. He knows about this.

The only personal connections I have to Point Welcome are 1) she was in the same division and we worked with her (BTW, in 1969-70 she was known as the "Soul Boat" because of her predominately black crew.) and, 2) She had an ENC who was a shipmate of mind aboard Iris before I went to Vietnam.


" I know in your mind you are doing absolutely nothing wrong."

It is not thought. It is fact. I am doing nothing wrong. You will have to show if and how I am. The thread was moved from another topic by John Long. Check out the "My Space" thread.

**************************************************
ROUND 2. Jim

Jim moves to the center of the ring and throws his first punch and misses.

"Core values can only be construed as punitive if you look at them in the negative. They are simply "DO's". UCMJ is certainly punitive. It is "DON'T's".'

If this is true then why are the core values an item of qualification for non-military awards. Even the Ancient Mariner (to keep things in context) requires the person to the example of the core values. This means that someone has to interpert the core values against a person who may or may not be in the reviewers mind qualified. I am sure there are other areas where the interpertation of the core values impose upon whether or not a person is qualified for something.

Here is an example:

PORT ANGELES, WASH. – The Coast Guard will now take the lead of the investigation looking into the alleged racial discrimination incident reported in Port Angeles, Wash., earlier last week. The individual who initially reported the incident has admitted to investigators from the Port Angeles Police Department and the Coast Guard that he fabricated the note containing racial slurs. “To touch on something as delicate as racism in an effort to make a false claim for personal gain is reprehensible,” said Capt. Bill Peterson, commanding officer of Coast Guard Group Port Angeles. “It violates the core values of honor, respect and devotion to duty that Coast Guard members live by.” “Port Angeles has adopted a Community Pledge to embrace equality and dignify diversity,” stated Michael Quinn, City Manager of Port Angeles. “It is at least gratifying to know that these recent allegations of racism had no basis of fact in the community and that the City, Coast Guard and citizens are indeed making progress in enhancing our climate of community understanding.” “The Port Angeles Multicultural Task Force has been an effective tool in promoting respect and acceptance for all people in our community,” Peterson said. “Our hope is that we will continue to make great strides, and that this unfortunate incident will not hinder that process.” The Coast Guard will hold the individual accountable in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is now an on-going investigation and as such, it is inappropriate for the military members involved to discuss the matter further. Further information may be disclosed at the conclusion of the proceedings.

Source: http://www.piersystem.com/external/index.cfm?clientID=FD190073-BAC9-C086-2631A37B2C4E7C0A&cid=21&fuseaction=EXTERNAL.docview&pressID=15172


We see here the UCMJ and core values are very much combined. The use of non-judical commentary in a punitive situation is inappropriate, but it does illustrate how the core values have become part of the disciplinary system. You also agree with me, "Bill, what violation of the UCMJ is NOT a violation of the Coast Guard's core values?" However, the difference is the core values are essentially undefined and certainly not codified.

"The Coast Guard that I joined was one where people with character were willing to risk their life to save the life of another. The Coast Guard that I joined was one where the members loved their country and were willing to defend it against enemy's that would bring it down, such as dope smugglers. The Coast Guard that I joined was one where people were willing to leave their families to go clean up a giant mess that was left after the Exxon Valdez fiasco."

Same Coast Guard I was in, except the former Coast Guard had people volunteering to leave their families to take lives.

"The Coast Guard that I joined was one where the members saw words like "Honor, Respect, Devotion to Duty" as words to live by. As words to aspire too. As words that were fundamental to the character that they wanted to develop within themselves."

OK, inspriation and watch words, but do not use them for punishment. This is the point of the original implementation. To establish values to inspire and promote productivity.

" I am sorry that you see our system as some sort of communitst organization. But I am not sorry that you are retired. I am not sorry that you are bringing that sort of attitude to our junior people."

I do not think you understand what a communist organization is. I would classify the Coast Guard as hierarchical and paternaliatic.


To do so would be to undermine the things that today's Coast Guard stands for. Tell me this,

"Dennis, If I don't like a movie I walk out. I don't always agree with everyone in the mess. What we do is respect each other. We do not trash the institution that we work for. If someone had the balls to walk into our mess and trash the core values, they would be dismissed. We make every effort to be productive. Do we always agree? NO. Do we speak with one voice? YES."

I do not believe you speak with one voice. We may see any sort of disagreement. Not to invite discussion on a serious issue, one that can be punitive is merely sticking ones head in the sand (or non-skid).

****************************
ROUND 3 - Stuart.

"Bill, I need a map to follow your logic........" I thought I had charted it pretty well. Should I use a UTM Grid?

"to recap your arguement...... the core values are meaningless because thirteen years ago, more or less, two people used them to prevent someone from recieving the recognition he deserved. Because this happened, they now lack, and never had any credibility. Is that your stance?"

In a fashion. The problem is that in the intervening 13 years no one has corrected the problem that made them punitive. Jon was not only prevented from receiving the honor, but was publically humilated in the process. CGHQ violated CG rules that stated the reasons for denial were not to be made public. I have no idea why the Commandant and MCPO-CG decided to make this situation public, but their actions violated the core values and regulations. This action and the inaction since makes them phoney instrutments. The coast guard should have the courage to do what the navy did and scrap them and start over. In addition, the larger issue is that no one can define them as instruments of inspiration is why they remain meaningless.

"Now.......false accusation can not be proven true. If they are, the accusation had to be true also. People are falsely convicted. But that's because other people decided to believe what they were told. That doesn't mean that that the false accusations were proven."

No a false accusation can be made and found erronesouly to be true, thereby proving a false accusation.

"My sarcasm doesn't work for you, because you weren't the intended audience. I didn't read the article, and it wouldn't change my stance. Could what the brother reported be used in a court of law? What did he talk about? Was he there when the accusations surfaced? Did he have an active part in it. Was he stationed at the same unit? If not everything is heresay."

I did not take the sarcasm as being directed to me but to your audience. I bet had he placed the MCPO-CG on report for allowing the information to become public in violation of CG regulations his words would have been used in court. After all, he was an active duty HMC. Frankly, Jon showed great restraint. Far more than I would have. The MCPO-CG is not above the law.

"No one Bill.....not one person....has ever be taken to Mast or Courtsmartial for violating the Coast Guard's Core values. The Core Values are not a negative or punitive thing. They are a positive thing. When you place someone on report, you need to list the UCMJ Art that they violated. During the investagation, each element of that Artricle has to be met in order to properly continue to the punitive stages. As Jim tried to point out, which you will no doubt ignore, is that no violation of the UCMJ could have been committed if the person in question followed the Coast Guard's Core Values."

No need to explain the process. However, to punitive there need be no connection to the UCMJ. As noted, even the dead were punished for not upholding the core values. The mention of the UCMJ is a red herring. Have you never kept someone aboard without taking them to mast? What about an alcohol incident? Have you pulled liberty for this because they did not live up the core values whether in fact or theory?

"It's about the delivery here Bill. You started this whole thing slamming on the Core Values and anyone who believes in them."

So, are you agreeing with me? It seems you disagree with the messenger not the message.

"After Dennis' comments you shifted gears as if you were somehow trying to enlight us to a misuse of justice that happened years ago. If would be like me walking in to work and telling everyone in the shop that their mothers are whores, and then saying that I used that as a tool to make them think about all the wonderful things that their mothers have done for them. I just put them on the defensive to make them think. If you wanted to talk about the case you should have just started a thread about it."

Let me enlighten you. While a young lad and going through catechism, my paster walked in and stated "Jesus Christ was a dirty, sinking Jew." Imagine the shock. He went on and explained that things are not to be taken on face value. Jesus was Jewish (contrary to what many think), we know of only one time he was in the water and probably smelled as bad as people of the region smell today.

Your's is an absurd example because it would be a violation of the core values and you would find that they are punitive when you marks were lowered.

I put no one on the defensive. Individuals do this to themselves. Could it be the core values are not working? If people are so defensive then the ideals of self reliance and inspriration are not working. This means the core values are only espoused because if you do not you will be punished.

"And with your "Oh look a baby wolf" diversionary tactics........ Calling a ship a boat, and wearing the proper uniform are two very different things. I'll ask you again, do you equate being relieved for cause and calling a ship a boat on the same level?
I've known of lots of people who were relieved for cause. I've only heard of one (1) that wasn't justified. I've only ever heard of one person who it turned out, didn't actually do what they thought he did."

So, you cite an example of false accusation being proven true? Referencing a ship as a boat is a small thing but many small things become large. My comment was should the Ancient Mariner be relieved under the core values because he, or she, is not uphold the tenents of the honor. The rules are clear. They are to uphold the traditions of the sea going service. Using proper terminology is one of those vital traditions.

" Innocence people don't tend to lay down and take it with these things. I don't know the facts surrounding the case you keep bringing up. But I have to believe, that if the person who was relieved, spent a fraction of the the energy fighting it as you have done rehashing it over the past thirteeen years, he wouldn't have been relieved in the first place."

I wrote the essay so people would know the facts. I have documented what I used. Have you not read it? If not, please do so. Thirteen years is a small amount of time and the same thing could occur again.

"Innocent people that settle for the injustice, aren't living up to those Core Values."

So, the core values are punitive? Not living up to some undefined set of attributes proves guilt? I'd like to see this in the MCM.

*****************************************

Dennis,

"Bill- you need to acknowledge that the Core Values were never used in the list of offenses during any CM or Mast. Do you so acknowledge?"

I cannot say because I do not have access to the Coast Guard's records. I am willing to say that at some point in a legal proceedings that the terms have not been raised even if to express some moral decline or other point.

*****************************************

Deane,

"The core values are in place as a type of moral barometer. They are values that those serving need to live by on and off duty. They define who we are as people. If your own personal values are not in line with the CG core values, then you have to reconcile those differences."

Good thoughts, but set the marks on the barometer? How are they defined? Is the a moral equivlent to millibars? We've heard a captain made them up. What is his expertise? Was a learned philosopher? By what standard was this moral compass set? True, magnetic, gyro? Is there an exact moral GPS to guide people.

The problem when an military organization gets into moral quicksand without firm guidelines and rules (e.g. The Rules of Land Warfare) it usually falls to individual interpertation. We've seen how this has played out in Iraqi prisons in the past. The army had core values too.

What I prefer is the Service motto, Semper Paratus. It has been around since 1896 and was created because of the problems within the Service's officer corps. The orginator mixed no words to its meaning. He even had it published in the New York Times (and perhaps other papers, I have not checked). He did so to inform not only his officer corps but the public as well. This passed the burden on the officer corps to shape up. The motto even transformed one office who had continual indebted problems. He squared away himself later wrote the service anthem to show what it meant to him. This was his guide and should be all the Coast Guard needs.

I wrote my essay on the motto because people have forgotten that is more than words.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

It would seem the CG does make the core values punishable.

Performance Trackers - each recruit is required to carry two in his/her left breast pocket folded a certain way. Basically it's a piece of paper where on top you fill out your name, company, week and day of training you're in and lead Company Commander's name. Below you have space to state the "offense" you committed and below that you have space what you did/plan on doing to fix the problem. Then you have Coast Guard's three core values listed and you must check whichever one you beleive you violated, and below this you have a whole list of possibly every thing one can do wrong, you must check whichever one(s) you did wrong. Also you gotta make sure you don't overcheck or undercheck. If you overcheck, the Company Commander will have a little "repair" session with you since you have so many things going on wrong, if you undercheck, the Company Commander will start looking at you very closely since you don't have enough wrong things going on with you.

Then, presumably if the "repair" session doesn't work, the kid is sent to the PEP.

Coast Guard basic training has one feature that the other military services do not -- the "Performance Enhancement Platoon." Years ago, all of the services had special units/companies/platoons/flights where TIs/CCs/RDCs/DIs/DS's could send problem recruits for a little "extra motivation." However, the military JAGS (lawyers) all got together and decided that these "punishment units" were too much like correctional custody, which is a punishment authorized under the provisions of Article 15 (nonjudicial punishment) of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). The view was that if you sent a recruit to such "punishment," you must grant him/her all the "rights" of receiving an Article 15, which means you must show an offense under the UCMJ, you must allow the recruit to consult with an attorney, you must provide a hearing, and the length of time (up to 30 days) in the "punishment unit" (correctional custody) is limited to the rank of the imposing commander. All of the services did away with such units, and/or replaced them with official correctional custody facilities.

However, the Coast Guard is not part of the Department of Defense, and its obvious that their lawyers have taken a different view. The Coast Guard still has a "punishment platoon," known as the "Performance Enhancement Platoon."

Source: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/cgjoin/l/aacgbasic3.htm

Here is a quote from a CPO about the core values.
Source: http://www.uscg.mil/LEADERSHIP/news/summer03/award.htm

“Core values: The Coast Guard has built a framework for strengthening leader development. Our core values – honor, respect and devotion to duty – frame the behaviors the Coast Guard expects from its people. We all must understand and support the Coast Guard’s commitment to respect every individual in the workplace and beyond, recognize and promote the value of diversity, and foster an environment that supports diverse individuals, perspectives, fairness, dignity, compassion and creativity in the workplace. We must learn to interact well with all types of people, which will help us appreciate individual differences. This will also eliminate misunderstandings and conflicts, improve communication, and produce healthier, more productive relationships, both personally and professionally. We should be able to make any workplace a place where everyone looks forward to coming to work. A workplace can be a place of healing or a place where disruption takes place. A leader’s job is to create an environment that is healing.”

Unfortunately he only defines one of them. Is this a military establishment?


This is an interesting file
http://learning.uscg.mil/uldp/ULPResources/AccountabilityandResponsibilityULP.pdf

One notation is:
ASK: What are some of the rules and regulations you’re held accountable to?
You should get answers like:
• Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
• Coast Guard Regulations
• Unit or Shipboard Regulations
• Coast Guard Core Values

So, the core values are being taught as if they are punishable just as rules and regulations?


Here is one that applies to Coast Guard civilians. These rules require an interpertation of an individual's adhereance to the core values.

Employee of the Year recognition
Coast Guard Magazine, March, 2005

The Civilian Employee of the Year and the Non-Appropriated Fund Employee of the Year programs, in conjunction with the Enlisted Person of the Year, recognize outstanding achievements by Coast Guard civilians and enlisted members in any career field each year.

Appropriated Fund employees in grades GS-09 or WG-10 or below and NAF employees in Pay Band Grades NF 1-3 and Craft & Trade NA employees are eligible. Superior job performance and significant contributions to the community or charitable volunteer programs sponsored by the Coast Guard or other government or national organizations are evaluated. Nominees for this award should reflect the Coast Guard's core values of "Honor, Respect, and Devotion to Duty."

Every June, Coast Guard Headquarters hosts an awards ceremony honoring the outstanding efforts of the Enlisted Persons of the Year (active duty and reserve) and the Civilian Employees of the Year.

Lastly for now, take a look at all the implied punishment for violations of the core values in Chapter 8 of the Personnel Manual.

Officially, the inclusion of the core values in regulations makes them punishable.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I would certainly hope they were a living example of what a MCPO should be. We've seen a couple MCPO-CG who were not.

You should practice what you preach, after all you do say you were a MCPO.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Burt,
You should practice what you preach, after all you do say you were a MCPO.

Why the attack? Do you have information I am not? I am doing what Master Chiefs should do. Walk and talk without fear of what people will say.

What is your side of the discussion again?

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Bill,
It is not an attack, an observation.

My side? Core values are here to stay, relevent and meaningful to those of us who truely care about OUR CG. You don't like them? Fine, but if you are a MCPO, you should support them. There are plenty of things I do not like about the CG, but as a Chief, I support them. Would you have said the same things before you retired? I don't know but I do know you could not have reached as many people. Our jobs as Chiefs is to simply support our COC which you are not.

As I said before, if it is important to the MCPOCG, it is important to all chiefs.

Use your time to do something constructive, fight for retirees benefits but dont bad mouthed OUR CG because you dont like core values.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Bill, I wanted to say this in the other thread, but got sidetracked, don't worry it fits here too. In regards to the last, it's not so much what you're saying Bill, it's the delivery, you should really go back and reread some of your posts. They are filled with hate and discontent. They range from condescending to downright disrespectful. Your posts against the Core Values are lacking any value. Not to mention your audience, you are a retired Master Chief, trying to convince a bunch of active duty Chiefs (most of which were skeptical about letting retirees join) that you are much wiser and we should all concede to your great wisdom. You are doing this without actually demonstrating any of that wisdom. I am sorry man, if I was an outsider looking in I would say you are here to just stir the pot and nothing more.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

"Leaders honor thier core values, but they are flexable in how they execute them." General Colin Powell

Are you a leader Bill? Or just a stirrer as JP3 put it?

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Found on CG Site.

Honor, Respect, and Devotion to Duty

Honor
Integrity is our standard. We demonstrate uncompromising ethical conduct and moral behavior in all of our personal actions. We are loyal and accountable to the public trust.

Respect
We value our diverse work force. We treat each other with fairness, dignity, and compassion. We encourage individual opportunity and growth. We encourage creativity through empowerment. We work as a team.

Devotion to Duty
We are professionals, military and civilian, who seek responsibility, accept accountability, and are committed to the successful achievement of our organizational goals. We exist to serve. We serve with pride.

These core values are more than just Coast Guard rules of behavior. They are deeply rooted in the heritage that has made our organization great. They demonstrate who we are and guide our performance, conduct, and decisions every minute of every day. Because we each represent the Coast Guard to the public, we must all embrace these values in our professional undertakings as well as in our personal lives.

Any questions?

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill,
It is not an attack, an observation.

My side? Core values are here to stay, relevent and meaningful to those of us who truely care about OUR CG. You don't like them? Fine, but if you are a MCPO, you should support them. There are plenty of things I do not like about the CG, but as a Chief, I support them.

My definition of being a Chief is somewhat different. I meant, to me, not being a blind follower because that only hurt the troops. It was the job of the Chief to ensure things did not occur that would impinge upon the folk who worked for and with them. Blindly following is just being blind to the situation and certainly is not being smarter nor thinking out of the old box. It is simple following.

Would you have said the same things before you retired? I don't know but I do know you could not have reached as many people.

Yes, I did say such things when I was on active duty. We had too. We had no real CMC system so we were more directly involved with our people. Our opinions were valued because those asking knew they would not get a followers response. WE did not click our heels and salute. WE questioned. It was our job. If you don't believe me ask member RDCS Jack Hawkins. We served together in CGHQ. It was a raucous bunch but we were all respected for our comments and honesty.


Our jobs as Chiefs is to simply support our COC which you are not.

I am sorry to see this. The union is broken. I could have cared less what the COC thought. He wasn't on the line with us. If you mean that I am not supporting the present COC, you are correct. There is no reason for me to support him. He has not shown himself worthy of it.


Use your time to do something constructive, fight for retirees benefits but dont bad mouthed OUR CG because you dont like core values.

It is strange that you have chosen to attack rather than discuss or debate the merits, or the lack of them, to my points. It is not that I dislike the core values. By themselves they are harmless sloganeering. However, when they became punitive that changed the entire complexion. You must admit they are punitive. I've certainly presented ample illustrations.

I do find it odd the core values you posted at the head of the discussion are not the same ones shown on the Cape May web site. Are there different ones for different applications? Just an observation.

The Powell quote is taken out of context. The general meant individual values, not thoe mandated by some corporate mantra. On this I agree. I am simply holding up may own standards, integrity, honesty and truthfulness that will exceed anything some captain can dream up.

On the core values quote you posted, "They are deeply rooted in the heritage that has made our organization great." We know this is not true. It seems most have no respect for the past. This has been said here many times. This is just more company-speak because the vast majority of people in the Coast Guard know nothing of the Service's heritage -- well, not before 1990 anyway.


John, you wrote in your usual attack mode, "Your posts against the Core Values are lacking any value. Not to mention your audience, you are a retired Master Chief, trying to convince a bunch of active duty Chiefs (most of which were skeptical about letting retirees join) that you are much wiser and we should all concede to your great wisdom."

Why do my posts lack "value?" Do your comments have any value at all? If so, why? A bunch of active duty chiefs should be a heartier bunch. I've seen nothing that would make me believe this. I've some whines and moans about my comments but no one has actually engaged in the topic. This leads to one conclusion. The core values have no meaning on which to defend them. They have been merely scooped up and swallowed cliche, metaphor and corporate gobbly-gook and all. No one has shown they are not punitive.

Come on, if you are the brighter, faster, and smarter bunch then let's see something. I would say that my level of experience in these matters is greater than yours. This is no brag. I have far more years of experience in looking at a subject without the veil of prejudice or the 'golly-gee' amazement of non-tangible theory as I see some here display.

The benefit of having retirees here is we are able express ourselves in a free and open manner. This knowledge, advise, and, yes, wisdom should be thought starters. However, if you feel it imporatant to take the safe route and follow along this would be nothing new. I've known many to be followers as chiefs.

Coast Guardsmen above all the services should have a more open minded senior enlisted corps. There may be too many officers in the CG, but they are rarely in places where they have a direct impact on the troops. This means their Chiefs should be in the forefront to serve as BS filters from above. A Chief does not need a set of cliches and slogans to know what the moral high road is. Hopefully, his parents taught him, or her, this.

What the Coast Guard is saying is it doesn't trust you. We could go into a discussion how this came about but we will save that for later.

Here is where the core values fall. The quote is by an unknown author (most likely Chief of Operations Oliver Maxam, a civilian) in CGHQ circa 1923. The paper was written as a rebuttal to the attempted take over of the Coast Guard by the Department of Commerce.

There is no exigency of the public service, be it in the direction of efficiency, economy, fitness and pertinency, good administration, better coordination, or any other emergency or consideration which call for the dissolution, abandonment, or upsetting the permanent management of the Coast Guard and the substitution therefor of new untired, idealistic policies which may, and likely would, hazard the important pubic interests [emphasis added] committed to the Treasury Department.


If the Coast Guard knew the dangers of importing idealistic meaures in 1923, why does it not know today?

Is this just pot stirring or has it stirred sparked some fire in the synapses.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Why do my posts lack "value?" Do your comments have any value at all? If so, why? A bunch of active duty chiefs should be a heartier bunch. I've seen nothing that would make me believe this. I've some whines and moans about my comments but no one has actually engaged in the topic. This leads to one conclusion. The core values have no meaning on which to defend them. They have been merely scooped up and swallowed cliche, metaphor and corporate gobbly-gook and all. No one has shown they are not punitive.

Bill, the main reason your posts lack value is because you fail to see the value in anyone elses posts. You don't even read your own posts. Allow me to double quote, "I've seen nothing that would make me believe this. I've (seen) some whines and monas about my comments but no one has engaged in the topic."

Someone actually provided you the text book definition ("corporate" if that makes it easier for you to swallow) of the Core Values. I personally explained to you that the Core Values mean different things to different people. Ok, so to you they are a punitive corporate tool that mean nothing. To me, they are a set of guidelines to live and conduct yourself by. What more do you want, because as far as I know, the internet does not currently have a way for me to upload blood for you. I guess I could prick my finger and take a picture to post, but are you really worth it?

Seriously, lets make this text book, you ask a numbered question and we (or I) can answer your question(s) with a number next to it, so you cannot possibly miss it next time around.

Edited to add: if no one has shown that they are not punitive, then no one has shown that they are. Where are you gonna go from there?

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

Yes, I did say such things when I was on active duty. We had too. We had no real CMC system so we were more directly involved with our people. Our opinions were valued because those asking knew they would not get a followers response. WE did not click our heels and salute. WE questioned. It was our job. If you don't believe me ask member RDCS Jack Hawkins. We served together in CGHQ. It was a raucous bunch but we were all respected for our comments and honesty.

Ok Bill, I'll bite on this paragrah and this paragraph, ONLY, becuause I'll concede that you are probably more educated than me and definately more experienced than me, but please hear me out. Because I didn't hear you say in an earlier post, maybe on a different thread, that you think that the CMC system is better, NOW than it was when you were in???? Because I never heard/saw you type those words....??? Is it better now or was it better then? Were things messed up in the past? YES...did the Coast Guard learn from them....I think so!!! Did they get better after you retired? I'll say hell yeah....is that a reflection of you? IN NO WAY!!! If you think the Coast Guard can and will grow without you being a part of it is negitive, then GOD HELP YOU. Sorry Bill, the world doesn't revolve around you!!!

Now, I don't know RDCS Hawkins, I'm sure he is a regular poster on this board, so I'm sure we don't need someone to post the validity of your statement, but I would love to read from some of these senior officers that "truely respected your comments" as you requested from someone questioned their outlook! I would love for you to post some validity to your input? You like to question everyone elses motive, as if they can produce a written article like you seem to always produce. I would like to see something in writing that states facts that you talk of today. If you have it, please share it with me. Like you say, if you have a source, share it. I don't intend this post as a personnal hit, I'm just asking you to do as you ask????

I respect my elders, and I'm truely open-minded to hearing from those that have served ahead of me, but I'm still trying to see the positive that you are trying to bring to this board? I'm only seeing the negitive! So if that is not your intension, maybe you should re-read your posts and do a better job at being a mentor, if that is what you intension is?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Bill I'm sorry.......for many things......
first, that you somehow think words like Honor, Respect, and Devotion to Duty, are meaningless. Regardless of the fact that some people will always abuse their power, those words still have meaning.

second, that you have seen several definitions of them, ....and still refer to them as being undefined.

third, that you somehow read my rebuttals as me coming around to your way of thinking. Let me clear up any confusion. I see the Merit in having those CG Core Values in place. I see great meaning in those words. I don't see them as punitive. I see not living up to them as opening yourself to punitive actions. But that isn't based on the words, that's based on Military life. People derelict in their duties should be held accountable.

fourth, if you think I click my heels and salute......... you're not a very good judge of character.

I could keep numbering these, but I'd like to leave you with just a couple quick ones..... We still have people who join today, and put themselves in a position where they may have to take another human life. The times haven't changed that much.
The RFC that I mentioned didn't prove false accusations........ there was no proof, so the accusations turned out to be false. There was no proof.
And as far as giving up the fight meaning you're guilty.....aren't you the one who referred to the last person in the battle being the victor, and silence surmounting to compliance?
And lastly...........do you really want me to believe that Honor, Respect and Devotion to Duty are exclusive to an area north of I-84 and east of the Mississippi?
You see, my father started instilling those same things into me the same year you made PO3. And for the record, he has no Military experience other than that six of his eight children served in three different branches. The only time he spent in New London was driving trucks from an area south west of there.

[MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)]

Bill, I've searched chapter 8 of the Persman (for those that weren't aware it deals with discipline). I've cut and pasted the entire paragraphs that have the words "core values" in them. The first is dealing with interpersonal relationships and the second deals with hazing. No where that I can see are they punitive in nature. If you are engaged in a prohibited relationship or haze another person, those are violations that are punitive in nature. Please show me where these are punitive.

Craig
(on a side note, the original post I made disappeared... even after some folks PM'd me about it... :confused: )


8.H.2.a. Professional Work Environment
Coast Guard policy is to sustain a professional work environment which fosters mutual respect among all personnel, and in which decisions affecting personnel, in appearance and actuality, are based on sound leadership principles. Commanding Officers, officers-in-charge, and supervisors are expected to provide an environment which enhances positive interaction among all personnel through education, human relations training, and adherence to core values.

8.J.1.2. Hazing serves no useful purpose and is contrary to our core values of honor, respect, and devotion to duty and has no place in our organization. The demeaning, abusive activities associated with hazing inhibit performance, debase personal dignity, and can result in serious injury. To prevent hazing, we must be aware of what constitutes hazing and understand these activities’ negative impact. Our success as an organization depends on the positive and productive attitude and performance of our people. A healthy, positive, professional work environment is essential to enable all our personnel to contribute to mission success.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

John P. postulates," if no one has shown that they are not punitive, then no one has shown that they are. Where are you gonna go from there?"

This is a two-fer. If they are not punitive how is it they are used as a reason for a RFC? Also Craig provided two of the four paragraphs that imply the punitive nature in Chapter 8 of the Personnel Manual. As he noted this is the section that outlines punishment and the mere fact they are detailed in a regulatory fashion makes them punitive. The core values being in the regulations (which are law) makes them punishable under UCMJ Art. 134. We may also see if a CO has a case of hazing on board he could be relieved for cause for a violation of the core values.


Remember this, I posted it earlier,

http://learning.uscg.mil/uldp/ULPRes...ibilityULP.pdf


ASK: What are some of the rules and regulations you’re held accountable to?
You should get answers like:
• Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
• Coast Guard Regulations
• Unit or Shipboard Regulations
• Coast Guard Core Values

If one is to be held accountable then it is punitive. Evidently this is begun in boot camp. Each recruit is now indoctrinated that the core values are punitive. The Coast Guard has lumped the core values into the same pile as the UCMJ and other matters of discipline.

Another two-fer.
JP writes, "Someone actually provided you the text book definition ("corporate" if that makes it easier for you to swallow) of the Core Values. I personally explained to you that the Core Values mean different things to different people."

Stuart concurs, "first, that you somehow think words like Honor, Respect, and Devotion to Duty, are meaningless. Regardless of the fact that some people will always abuse their power, those words still have meaning.

second, that you have seen several definitions of them, ....and still refer to them as being undefined."

If they mean different things to different people and there are several different definitions of them, why are they called core values. Where is the core? If you want people to be "accountable to" them but they are mercurial what good do they do for the Service?

The Air Force has no problem in defining the purpose; perhaps this is what the Coast Guard lacks.

"The Little Blue Book.[this tickles me, it is a play on Chairman Mao's Little Red Book.] The Air Force core values are an attempt to give all members a common standard for mission execution. By establishing this, it gives the transformational leader a step up in that everyone has the same values to draw from for mission execution. “They are the common bond among all comrades in arms, and they are the glue that unifies the force and ties us to the great warriors and public servants of the past.”

With multiple meanings, the Coast Guard core values are but flour paste.

"Ok, so to you they are a punitive corporate tool that mean nothing. To me, they are a set of guidelines to live and conduct yourself by. What more do you want, because as far as I know, the internet does not currently have a way for me to upload blood for you. I guess I could prick my finger and take a picture to post, but are you really worth it?"

I take it there is no common bond in the Coast Guard. If this is true, why are the core values allowed to be used as punitive instruments?

Stuart continues, "I see the Merit in having those CG Core Values in place. I see great meaning in those words. I don't see them as punitive. I see not living up to them as opening yourself to punitive actions. But that isn't based on the words, that's based on Military life. People derelict in their duties should be held accountable."

OK, what is the "great meaning?" Define them. It is not living up to the core values that makes them punitive. It is the perception and interpertation of individuals that someone is not living up to them is what makes them punitive. Take the Ancient Mariner award. The core values were codified as a requirement where they were not before. However, unlike the quantifiable requirements, there are now subjective requirements that have no meaning thus making this requirement personal and unfair. This is especially true if everyone has different meanings as you and JP have.

I too believe people should be held accountable, but they should be held to a standard that is known and used by all. If someone is derelict they should be charged under the proper system. Dereliction may not mean someone does not have values. Ever run a boat aground for any reason? Technically this is dereliction. Does this mean you don't have values?

"fourth, if you think I click my heels and salute......... you're not a very good judge of character."

Perhaps you do not but it sounds like it. Others certainly do. They've said so.

"We still have people who join today, and put themselves in a position where they may have to take another human life. The times haven't changed that much."

But it is not part of the service culture. The Coast Guard used to regularly train people to do this. It was part of the military training. Now it is a specialized function. This leads to all those comments whether or not the Coast Guard is a military service.

"The RFC that I mentioned didn't prove false accusations........ there was no proof, so the accusations turned out to be false. There was no proof.
And as far as giving up the fight meaning you're guilty.....aren't you the one who referred to the last person in the battle being the victor, and silence surmounting to compliance?"

However, you said the person was falsely accused but still relieved. That certainly means the false accusation was proved if only temporarily. You'll have to give me my quote on the last person in the battle. I usually equate silence to a couple things. Like students in a classroom they don't know the answer or are too lazy to look it up.

"And lastly...........do you really want me to believe that Honor, Respect and Devotion to Duty are exclusive to an area north of I-84 and east of the Mississippi?"

No, I do want you to know they were created from the culture north of New York. You should really look into the regional culture that drives the Coast Guard and has since 1865.

If you don't believe me have someone at the CGA (which supplies 99% of the flag officers) do a statistical run of the home places of the cadets. I did it for the classes from 1990 to 1999. I then compared these to the classes of 1890 to 1899. Interesting what you will find when you look.

I'm still waiting for a definition of the core values as well as an answer to the question why are the punitive?

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

[QUOTE=MKCM Brett Ayer]

Brett,

I moved your comment here so to keep it in context.

I don't know him nor have I seen anything that would verify this. He must have been deep into the TQM process. Perhaps you can find him and ask him to write how the process developed.


Bill, Thank you for moving my post, this is a much better place for the discussion.

I am not a historian and have a full time job, but thank you for the offer (I don’t have to find CAPT Taylor; I know right where he is). Perhaps you can contact him and write a paper on the development of our written Core Values. PM me if you would like his Email address. As a historian, I would expect you would look at the issue with an open mind and draw your conclusions from your research and not the other way around.

I find it interesting that you have time to question my statement about CAPT Taylor, but did not find time to do a quick Google search. I Googled “USCG Core Values Tom Taylor”, and the first hit was an article that stated CAPT Taylor was the leader of a working group that developed our written Core Values. The basis for my assertion that CAPT Taylor developed the written core values are my one on one discussions with him. If you really want to know how we got to where we are in today’s Coast Guard, he is the one to talk to.

I also find it interesting that you state things as fact, when your only knowledge of the situation is second hand, but then you challenge others to back up their statements with indisputable facts. Your tone often comes across as “I’m right because I say so, and you’re wrong because you can’t prove that you’re right”.

Be Safe,

Brett

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Bill,

I'll be brief, so I am not misunderstood.

Regardless of when we wrote down new core values, they were not created by any Captain anywhere. If you ask he'll probably agree. The only thing any natural work group in the TQM process did was identify values that had been in place since the beginning, and decide which ones were most important to us as a service.

A simple way to figure whether or not they can be punitive is to examine the part of the UCMJ covering "bringing a discredit" to the service. It is very vague and "mercurial" as you put it. It is also a punishable offense. That does not mean that they were designed to be, or must be punitive.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

... have a full time job ...

I can't tell you how many times I've seen that excuse from people on the forums over the past decade.

It seems to be a catch-all cop out by those not willing to explain themselves so their target audience understands.

I would explain myself more, but ... I have a full time job. :)

Do today's chief's, yes I did not capitalize, use that excuse with their charges? Petty Officer Smith, I would explain the nuances of the task to you but ... I have a full time job. I'm sure those unwilling chief's are small, numerically, just like they were in my time, only the excuse was "cuz I said so."

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

[QUOTE=GMCM Bill Wells (Ret);16850]

I also find it interesting that you state things as fact, when your only knowledge of the situation is second hand, but then you challenge others to back up their statements with indisputable facts. Your tone often comes across as “I’m right because I say so, and you’re wrong because you can’t prove that you’re right”

Brett, In the legal and historical world you have to prove you are right. I have offered numerous examples to illustrate my point. So far, no one else has bothered.

I suppose my actual particpation in the creation of the core values can be viewed as second hand knowledge. However, I use primary source documentation to formulate opinion. Even in the Jon McManis incident I gathered primary documents, including a letter from Trent, as well as interviews with people involved. This is how I know the core values were turned punitive and remain so. I also no one has made any attempts to correct the problem.

I am not a historian and have a full time job, but thank you for the offer (I don’t have to find CAPT Taylor; I know right where he is). Perhaps you can contact him and write a paper on the development of our written Core Values. PM me if you would like his Email address. As a historian, I would expect you would look at the issue with an open mind and draw your conclusions from your research and not the other way around.

My mind is open. This is why I ask people the questions I do. Unfortunately, the answers have been largely attacks and ambiegous. Look at the question to what they mean. We've been told them mean different things to different people. Is this the core competency worked on at the development stage? Confusion?

I find it interesting that you have time to question my statement about CAPT Taylor, but did not find time to do a quick Google search. I Googled “USCG Core Values Tom Taylor”, and the first hit was an article that stated CAPT Taylor was the leader of a working group that developed our written Core Values. The basis for my assertion that CAPT Taylor developed the written core values are my one on one discussions with him. If you really want to know how we got to where we are in today’s Coast Guard, he is the one to talk to.

I tried your query outline and nothing popped. I've done many searches, not only on Google, for core values but putting his name in the mix produced the following.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:5L_BcebB-H0J:learning.uscg.mil/uldp/ULPResources/LeadershipComptHistory.doc+%22Tom+Taylor%22+%22USC G%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

I see where he was the team leader. That in itself does not make him the originator but a key figure.

Once again, for clarity, I have never written the core values began as punitive. They just turned that way. It was inevitiable in the coast guard. Besides, according to the history, there are now 27 competencies imbedded into the core values. Do people really know what they are? Is this why there is no firm definition?

Ken,

The only thing any natural work group in the TQM process did was identify values that had been in place since the beginning, and decide which ones were most important to us as a service.

The point is why were the values needed at all? Was this discussed or was the work group told to come up with some attributes? It appears a list was made and these were the ones that floated to the top. Why these?

A larger question should have been, besides if they are really needed other than some corporate management system says they are, would be; Just who is served by the core values? Are they not just more extra-regulatory factors of organizational control? Did they not exist before?

A simple way to figure whether or not they can be punitive is to examine the part of the UCMJ covering "bringing a discredit" to the service. It is very vague and "mercurial" as you put it. It is also a punishable offense. That does not mean that they were designed to be, or must be punitive.

Designs have a way of coming out differently. Look at the problems in Deepwater which are mechancial problems with the element of human subjectivity.

In my reading I looked at the air force which seems to have taken a different tact. They defined what the values were to mean first and found terms to fit them. Then again, the air force, from its army beginnings, is egalitarian and bureaucratic while the coast guard is more autocratic in its organization. The coast guard has been this way since 1790 and very much part of its culture.

It would be very difficult for the coast guard not to develop some set of values without them ultimately becoming punitive as these have. It is deeply seated in the core culture of the Service.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

[QUOTE=MKCM Brett Ayer;17033]

Brett, In the legal and historical world you have to prove you are right. I have offered numerous examples to illustrate my point. So far, no one else has bothered.

SO Brett is right. You have nothing to support our claim. Offer numerous illistrations but nothing to support other than your belief core values are meaningless.

Bill, As a Chief, I know when to fight and when not. I know when ot salute and shutup and when not too. Core Values shut up, salute and say Aye Aye Sir.

Do you have kids? I guess if you try and instill any of your core values into them they are meaningless, since they have no historical value. But then they dont have to live them since they arent defined either.

And Yes, use your obvious abilities to help out retired veterans and lobby congress. Your side of this discussion is just as meaningless as you believe our core values are.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

[QUOTE=GMCM Bill Wells (Ret);17041]

SO Brett is right. You have nothing to support our claim. Offer numerous illistrations but nothing to support other than your belief core values are meaningless.

Quite the contrary. The fact that I have noted the various meanings gleaned from very official Coast Guard sources and the verification of two active duty board members who wrote the values can mean anything the individual certainly demonstrate there is no organizational meaning, therefore, they are meaningless to the organization.

It just so happens there is another illustration. http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/101196122/m/8720013101001
This one is also punitive.

Bill, As a Chief, I know when to fight and when not. I know when ot salute and shutup and when not too. Core Values shut up, salute and say Aye Aye Sir.

As I referred earlier, heel clicking.

Do you have kids? I guess if you try and instill any of your core values into them they are meaningless, since they have no historical value. But then they dont have to live them since they arent defined either.

My children are adults and doing fine. One is a minister and the other a successful computer graphics artist. I taught them the values of my ancestors which were not formed by a committee or chosen from a list. When they became adults they began making their on decisions. The Coast Guard is not allowing you to make your own. This is why they have made the values punitive. They won't give you a choice.

And Yes, use your obvious abilities to help out retired veterans and lobby congress. Your side of this discussion is just as meaningless as you believe our core values are.

You may want to resubmit the first sentence, it has no bearing on the topic. I do not believe my "side" of the discussion is meaningless. It has gotten people to think or helped other dig deeper into the dogma.

If the values have a unifying meaning for the Coast Guard please tell us what it is.

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

I can't tell you how many times I've seen that excuse from people on the forums over the past decade.

It seems to be a catch-all cop out by those not willing to explain themselves so their target audience understands.

I would explain myself more, but ... I have a full time job. :)

Do today's chief's, yes I did not capitalize, use that excuse with their charges? Petty Officer Smith, I would explain the nuances of the task to you but ... I have a full time job. I'm sure those unwilling chief's are small, numerically, just like they were in my time, only the excuse was "cuz I said so."

Joe:

What part did I not explain? Bill asked me to do additional research, I said I don’t have time, how is that a cop out? This forum is not my life. I participate as time permits.

Bill,

You are the only one on here that claims to be an historian. I have no obligation to backup my posts with research; this forum is not the legal or historical world. You made a statement that was purely opinion on how the Core Values were created; all I did was let y