GMCM Bill Wells (ret)- A Question, please.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Bill-

You've posted a tremendous amount on CG history and some things that you see wrong with today's CG. I like it when people challenge assumptions, so you're not antagonizing me the way you do some others.

However, your input has been pretty much one-sided. To allow the membership to see the "other side" of Bill Wells, answer this question, please.

What is today's CG doing right?

[BMC Ken Gouge]

In short, the same thing we have been doing for over 216 years. We are training our people to perform our missions, helping them perform our missions, and standing by as they learn to train others to perform those missions.

Our methods of training, and the specifics of our missions are ever changing. I am not one to call myself "Old Guard", and don't pay much heed to those that do.

If anyone enters a job of any kind, whether private sector or military, and leaves 20 years later with their job not going through major changes they have not evolved with the times, which are always changing.

In a corporation this means either a profit loss, or a failure to seize new oportunities for profit as the market changes. In the military it meant not taking advantage of new tool or methods to perform our jobs better. It means not staying one step ahead of the smugglers, using antiquated means of performing SAR or AtoN, or spending more time repairing old equipment that is outdated rather than procuring and learning new equipment.

What are we doing right? I think we are still making the next crew ready to take the reigns when we leave.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Dennis,

I do not believe it is a matter of right or wrong. I do not put the past into the present, however, I do use the past a comparison, a guide.

I think what the Coast Guard is doing right is what it has always done. It is trying, for the most part, to improve with what it has. Unfortunately, what it has in the way of organization and materiel depends upon what it had in the past.

The Coast Guard thought Deepwater was the right thing to do, but found out after a decade it had neither the expertise nor background to carry it out. I too was initially impressed with the beginning efforts. The theory made sense from the point of view of we who lived and worked with the inconsistences and inadequacies of previous generations. Nevertheless, as time progressed, my view changed. I told this to a captain, and old friend, over lunch at CGHQ. He was neck deep in the program and I stongly suggested they look at the service's history of large building programs to see what did and what did not work.

Although the levels of sea going expertise is lagging in the Coast Guard today, there appears to be cadre of dedicated people who will be the center of the Coast Guard if a rapid build up is needed. That cadre is smaller today than it was at the beginning of WWII.

Technology is, believe or not better, as are human territorial concerns for the troops, but here too some of the human concerns have gone too far to the detriment of the service as a whole.

I cannot say the ships are better. Many are, sadly, the same ones as when I was on active duty. Some may claim that minimal manning is better, but I disagree. It is well that some automation relieves some billets but from what I've been told the work is more overall.

The consolidation of districts would have been a good move but this only increased, for some odd reasons, the number of flag officers -- What is the number today? 46? There were 12 at the end of WWII (most were tombstone admirals) and one at the beginning of that war.

As noted above, right and wrong is speculative and depends on ones overall knowledge. If one has only a narrow knowledge of the Coast Guard, its functions and history then there is a propensity to see more good. A greater overview will allow someone to see by constrasts the compraisons of many groups and functions.

Frankly, I stay with a very narrow range of topics in my discussions. I have people disagree with me whether they know anything about the topic or not because most fit in that narrow knowledge group. It shows in their level of discussion.

In other times and places I have asked "Why Don't Coasties Read?" It is not that coasties do not read what they are supposed too (most have not completed any of the official reading lists) for their work; it is they don't read things that will provide the stimulation to look at their service in another way. This is what the catch phrase "thinking out of the box" means, but very few ever do it. However, there is a positive more are trying to do this but this style of thinking must be coupled with risk taking. Very few do this. There was more risk taking in the "old guard," but less thinking out the box largely because it was not necessary to do the work.

I am sure I did not answer your question. There is no real answer. I am sure others will supply lists of things but look at them closely and see if they are better or the things are only preceived to be better. They may not have the knowledge and experience to know if they are better.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

So, the only thing that today's CG is doing right, is "trying, for the most part, to improve with what it has..." But then you qualify that with "Unfortunately, what it has in the way of organization and materiel depends upon what it had in the past." So, in essence you're saying that today's CG really isn't doing anything right.

You don't give me a lot to work with, Bill.

Let me attack this from a different angle. If you were appointed COMDT today, what would you do to put the service back on the right track? Be specific, please.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

It is pretty tough to drive in a straight line when your are focused on the rear view mirror. While it is important to know where you have been, expecially if the road was a rough one, it is more important to know where you are going.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jim, I have to say,......you get wiser, everyday.

[BMC John Phillips III]

I will second BMCM, great analogy Jim.

Dennis, this thread is giving Bill exactly what he wants. The Unvarnished Truth has become the Bill Wells show. You gave him an open to say something good about the CG and two sentences in he turns South with an "unfortunately."

I can only surmise that Vietnam took a greater toll on him that anyone is willing or able to imagine or he had a very sad childhood.

Someone's gonna get in my skittles for saying that, but in my opinion it's no worse than anything that's been said about the Core Values, the Commandant, the MCPOCG or anything else Coast Guard that Bill has absolutely nothing good to say about.

[MSTCS Dennis Noble (Ret.)]

Senior Chief Madsen,

At the risk of going off subject. You are correct that you can not steer a straight course by looking backward. However, you also are doomed to make the same mistakes if you do not know where you came from.

As a historian, I must look to the past. I am not one, however, who believes that "what is past is prologue," but the past can help.

There is a fine balance--as in all of life--of looking at the past while trying to move ahead on a straight course. Most every older generation says, basically, our way was the best. Most every new generation says, basically, "Shut up, we know best."

Wish I had the wisdom to tell you which way is best, but I do not--I will let you wrestle with that yourselves.

Sorry to intrude.

"Those that seek the truth should be punished." (Unknown)

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Jim,

Are you saying that you don't use history?

I'm sure you as well as everyone else has gleaned from mishap reports that they were privy to in a concerted effort to improve the way you did the CG's business. Unfortunately only using what your privy to makes it generational history, with each generation not benefitting from the mistakes of earlier generations.

Back in 2000, I was talking to a MCPO who was describing the CCTI to me. He also inquired whenever someone who stated the "bad things that happened before the CCTI" he would ask if they ever witnessed such things ... and no one stepped up to say they did. However, that does not prevent the current generation from talking like they know something that happened in previous generations. Even our own JP talks of the bosn' hole counseling or other such poor leadership techniques as if they were prevelent in my Coast Guard. He would be deeply disappointed to know that didn't happen during my time at my units.

I don't know how many times when someone in the new generation stated something stupid like the previous generation couldn't do something ... and that mostly was related to using the new tools of the trade, not the actual doing. They would be surprise on how fast the older generation could ramp up for some of the tasks.

Was my generation smarter than the one before it? Well, like Einstein said about relativity, it's a matter of the prospective. Where where I stood ... hell yeah. From where the previous generation stood ... hell no. Why should the responses change as we move from generation to generation. It won't.

Dennis asked for specifics. I doubt if anyone could speak specifically across generational lines because the devil is in the details. Talking generically is the common bond, not the specifics. Looking at Deepwater, the concept is grand and I doubt you will find anyone in disagreement. Specifically, look at the accusations towards the inability to meet the tempest requirements in the 123s as well as the structural failures. Where was the COTR? Who was the COTR? Someone signed off on all that stuff prior to acceptance.

I find it humorous that Deane posted the article concerning tradition in the CCTI area and the MCPO-N's article talked on how easy it was to change the Navy's Core Values from just a couple of years before. Only the Marines stood their ground, as their values have not changed. Yes it was sloganeering.

The application in the early days set the stage for my impression of the Core Values, no matter how I valued the tenets of the slogan ... Honor, Integrity, and Devotion to Duty. Make no mistake on my beliefs.

Another slogan that is sometime's worthless is "People are our best asset." They are until there's a RIF. Then that two that JP gave someone will come back and throw that person out of the CG. Yes, that had happened in the 1980's RIF, in the 1990's RIF, and it will happen again. That could be a contributing factor to the evergoing discussion of marks inflation.

One thing that I always have to view carefully is when the new generation uses the acronymn CPOA. To me, that's the Association. To the new generation, it's the Academy.

Some in the new generation with the Core Values have sumarilly dismissed the generations without that slogan as not having those qualities, declaring themselves "better" because of the slogan. Nothing could be further from the truth for all generations.

People will always read into what someone writes more than what is written based on their baseline knowledge. That is human nature.

What has today's CG done right? What it always has done. It accomplishes the mission with whatever resources they are given. They played the hand given, instilling pride in their charges, completing the mission, and doing what sailors do best ... bitch, just like the sailors of yesteryear, across each generation.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

So, the only thing that today's CG is doing right, is "trying, for the most part, to improve with what it has..." But then you qualify that with "Unfortunately, what it has in the way of organization and materiel depends upon what it had in the past." So, in essence you're saying that today's CG really isn't doing anything right.

You don't give me a lot to work with, Bill.

Let me attack this from a different angle. If you were appointed COMDT today, what would you do to put the service back on the right track? Be specific, please.

I wrote what I did because of the constant turnover of the Coast Guard priorities. Every four years everything changes. The CG is undergoing another at the present. It is difficult to track the right from the wrong when things are in constant motion. It also creates confusion in the service and the worse example of this is careerism not only in the officer corps but most recently the enlisted corps.

I cannot be specific about what I would do as commandant. There are too many variables to consider. The first of which would be background - you know history. I would have to attend the CGA then have a career track that would lead me to that point.

I am Allen spent the four years as Chief of Staff thinking about and learning the procedures to do the things he would as commandant. The largest problem a commandant has is getting the officer corps behind his concepts. It is not enough to order them. They must be loyal. We know this is not always true and I've seen some undermine a sitting commandant if his ideas do not coincide with theirs.

I have no idea what I would do as commandant, but I do know most reach back on either their personal history or that of others to formulate what they want to do in the future.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

John,

I can only surmise that Vietnam took a greater toll on him that anyone is willing or able to imagine or he had a very sad childhood.

Someone's gonna get in my skittles for saying that, but in my opinion it's no worse than anything that's been said about the Core Values, the Commandant, the MCPOCG or anything else Coast Guard that Bill has absolutely nothing good to say about.

Actually it is. You have attacked me on a personal level. So much for your core values.

I have expressed my opinion that is based upon research and fact. You cannot cite one instance to prove your asserations.

Some advise. Either show your credentials as a trained psychologist or leave the remarks in your head. Vietnam was one of the best learning periods in my career. The factor of life and death on a daily basis has that effect. This is something of which you have no knowlegde but you should be willing to learn from those who have.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Dennis,

I am officially putting you in my personal catagory of "Bringing problems and Never Solutions." Not very Chiefly of you, Bill.

At least I recognize there is a problem. Not very chiefly not too. However, your assumption is there is a solution. I offered a solution for the core values problem. Can them and start over.

Just like making an approach at sea on another vessel that is larger than you. If you miss and begin to get sucked into their screws it is time to back out and try another approach.

The Coast Guard got sucked into the core values without a proper approach and is still trying get alongside.

I have also recommended reducing the number of commissioned officers and increasing enlisted numbers. That suggestion has not been met with much favor.

I understand you would like simple and direct solutions, but most of the time there are neither. I've seen nothing from you. Why attack someone for the things you don't do? Is that being "chiefly?"

Here's something positive I once heard from a Coast Guard captain during the days of suggesting bumper stickers. "Coast Guard Women Come First." Now that's positive.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Bill- I am officially putting you in my personal catagory of "Bringing problems and Never Solutions." Not very Chiefly of you, Bill.

I shall not debate with an individual that has nothing posititive to say.

BT
NNNN

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Applause for Dennis!

[BMC John Phillips III]

You have attacked me on a personal level. So much for your core values.

I have expressed my opinion that is based upon research and fact.

This is something of which you have no knowlegde but you should be willing to learn from those who have.


Bill I am man enough to apologize for my remarks about your childhood and Vietnam. But I have to clarify some of the above:

1. Replace the word "attacked" with "retaliated" as you attacked me personally by saying my Core Values were meaningless. Define those words Core and Values then you can compare and see who should be more offended. But, you're right, I should have taken the high road and just ignored you like most everyone else is starting to do.

2. You should take out the "that is based upon research and" and replace with "as", because you "expressed all of your opinions as if they were facts."

3. You are totally assuming I know nothing about Vietnam, how do you know my father or someone close to me wasn't in Vietnam? Where is the research and fact to base that opinion?

[FSC Jayare Parker (Ret)]

JP17,
Ignoring works well.

Jayare

[ETC John D Zidek]

Joe J,

I have to acknowledge your previous post. Everyone else seemed to roll right by it.

The devil is in the details, we cant say we are doing it better than them anymore the the future coasties can say they are doing it better than us. Alot of what we do is the same, but the tools have improved and the people have different equipment and skill sets.

Perspective changes everything!

The bottom line is we are still doing more with less...
How does that saying go?
We have been doing so much for so long with so little we are now qualified to do everything with nothing.
Pretty much sums everything up.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill I am man enough to apologize for my remarks about your childhood and Vietnam.

Accepted.


1. Replace the word "attacked" with "retaliated" as you attacked me personally by saying my Core Values were meaningless. Define those words Core and Values then you can compare and see who should be more offended. But, you're right, I should have taken the high road and just ignored you like most everyone else is starting to do.

First of all they are not "your" core values. They were issued to you by the Coast Guard. You were not given a choice of sizes either.

I am not offended at all that you are offended. Are you sure people are ignoring? Perhaps they are just thinking about it.

2. You should take out the "that is based upon research and" and replace with "as", because you "expressed all of your opinions as if they were facts."

I have no idea why you are trying to edit my posts. What I wrote is correct. I have posted fact with my posts. Most of it officical Coast Guard statements. Have you looked at Chapter 8 of the Personnel Manual yet? It makes the core values punitive.

3. You are totally assuming I know nothing about Vietnam, how do you know my father or someone close to me wasn't in Vietnam? Where is the research and fact to base that opinion?

The comments you make lends to the belief. You may have read some on the topic, but simply having a father in the conflict does not mean you know anything about it. I've known many kids who's dads were in conflicts and they are bricks when it comes to knowledge. If so, do your tell him what he knows does not apply to the present and you don't need his wisdom?


People may ignore my posts but it will be to their detriment. They will not learn that an opposing viewpoint is as American as, ---- well you fill it in.

[MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)]

Bill,
You asked JPIII if he had looked at the Personnel Manual Chapter 8, because it makes the core values punitive in nature. I've cut and pasted both paragraphs of chapter 8 that mention "core values". The first paragraph falls under interpersonal relationships and the second is hazing. How does either one show that our core values are punitive in nature?

Craig

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.

[ETC Brian Strattard]

eh...anyone can post facts and skew them into their own views...just ask Michael Moore...just don't ignore the facts the other side has to offer...

Strat "Wise beyond his years...stated by himself :D " sends...

[BMC John Phillips III]

People may ignore my posts but it will be to their detriment. They will not learn that an opposing viewpoint is as American as, ---- well you fill it in.

Bill, I probably won't ever ignore your posts (not entirely anyway). I can't, it's just not in my nature that when someone is totally wrong about something to stand idly by and let them go on believing it. I guess that's a sign of a good Chief, don't you think? I mean I haven't given up on you.

Anyway, don't take me not responding directly to your last post as ignoring, it's more a case of the last two posts pretty much sum it up. That Brian, he is pretty wise for such a young fellar :p

Oh and another reason I couldn't just ignore you is that you might get the impression you win.

Bonus question, do you play Chess? I would guess you do, right now you have one piece left and you must play like me, cause you haven't laid him down yet. I have to tell you though, your chances of pulling a stalemate are very slim.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

[QUOTE=ETC Brian Strattard;17018]eh...anyone can post facts and skew them into their own views...just ask Michael Moore...just don't ignore the facts the other side has to offer...

/QUOTE]

Brian, you comment supposes "the other side" has offered fact. If you read my posts, you will find that not only do I provide examples to strengthen my position but I have the ability to provide analysis.

No one has shown that I have skewed any fact. There has been no rebuttal of anything. Craig did cut and paste two of the four sections of the Personnel Manual I referenced but he offered no commentary to what he thought they meant.

I recommended the reading of these four sections so people would have a common ground. I do this with students. There is required reading then we see what they get from it. Once we know how they think, then the education may begin.

As I stated in the other thread, the fact that the core values have been placed in regulations (a function not part of their original intent) they are law. The congress allows agencies to create regulations based on the laws they pass. If the Coast Guard pushes the core values into a regulatory status they are, by law, punitive.

I would not use Michael Moore as an example. He is far smarter than you give him credit. I see you have broken a core value in disparaging a civilian for expressing his contitutional rights.

I am waiting for the other side to pony up some facts.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

[QUOTE=GMCM Bill Wells (Ret);17030 I see you have broken a core value in disparaging a civilian for expressing his contitutional rights.

I am waiting for the other side to pony up some facts.[/QUOTE]

Interesting you use a meaningless core value when you need it.

Facts have been posted but you fail to read them much like Moore.

[BMCS Dave Considine]

I recommended the reading of these four sections so people would have a common ground. I do this with students. There is required reading then we see what they get from it. Once we know how they think, then the education may begin.

Herein lies the problem, we are not your students, please stop treating us like we are. You feel your view is the only correct one. And now you must "educate" us into believing your view. It seems to me, the majority of the Chiefs here feel your view on the Core Values is incorrect, and it also appears that you are unwilling to be educated on another view by us lowly Chiefs.

[ETC Brian Strattard]

Bill...

I broke a Core Value??? hmmmm.....All I did was provide an analogy that your style of writing is the same as Mr. Moore's...That only the facts that support your arguement are included and anything that doesn't fit is excluded...that is all...It is a well known fact that Mr. Moore only includes facts that fit his theories otherwise his movies wouldn't be so controversial...If I disparaged Mr. Moore by comparing him to you...well...I'm not sure how he was disparaged unless you see placing him in a category with you is derogatory to him...:confused: ??? Again, interpretation is left to the reader...my writing skills only help so much...

Strat sends...

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dennis, I'll answer your question.......AtoN. The Coast Guard always does AtoN right. We do it better, respond quicker, and work more reliably, and cheaper than any other agency out there. We go into dangerous waters to show others what to avoid. Where others only want to talk about where we've failed in the past, the Coast Guard is still showing people how to travel safely into their future. And we apply the lastest techologies to ensure that we are as accurate as possible. We provide the light to bring people safely home.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill...

I broke a Core Value??? hmmmm.....All I did was provide an analogy that your style of writing is the same as Mr. Moore's...That only the facts that support your arguement are included and anything that doesn't fit is excluded...that is all...It is a well known fact that Mr. Moore only includes facts that fit his theories otherwise his movies wouldn't be so controversial...If I disparaged Mr. Moore by comparing him to you...well...I'm not sure how he was disparaged unless you see placing him in a category with you is derogatory to him...:confused: ??? Again, interpretation is left to the reader...my writing skills only help so much...

Strat sends...

Brian, Under Respect you are supposed to respect people of different cultures. You are supposed to Honor the rights of all and the devotion to duty is to defend the Constitution.

I believe his films are controverisal because he points out things others will not. All people in the entertainment business will use what the have. Many thought Moore's use of the Marine in his film was poor, but if you speak freely on flim to anyone that person has the right to use it how they wish.

I take it you listen to the conservative talk shows. They don't skew anything do they?

[ETC Brian Strattard]

Bill,

I don't put much stock in today's media or talk shows. It seems the media's only goal is to sensationalise everything in the name of selling their product and padding their pockets. As far as talkshows go...there is a show for every point of view...saying one is better or more right than the other is like saying one religion is right and all of the others are wrong. And they all claim that they give the whole truth with no spin...yeah right...(the only form of talk show I listen to is Jim Rome)...I observe everything on my own and come to conclusions using what I know and what I feel in my gut...and you can't argue with your gut...you can try to feed your gut a bunch of crap but you'll end up paying for it later...in regards to respecting Mr. Moore, I never said he was wrong (even though that is not disrespect), told him he couldn't do what he does, or diminished him in any way shape or form. I merely stated that his documentaries are one sided, which he has admited to. I never called into questions to contents of his messages...If saying one's opinion is wrong...wouldn't you be the most disrespectful person on this board? Of course not...you're just argumentative (reallllllllly argumentative)...but when I argue back I'm disrespectful??? Give me a break Mr. Wells:rolleyes: ...

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Mr. Wells? Where's the respect?

You wrote, "anyone can post facts and skew them into their own views...just ask Michael Moore. . . "

I am pretty good at reading implication. Since you decided to use Moore and not, say, G. W. Bush about skewing facts; it would seem you have a bias.

You're latest remarks indicate there is no bias and you are an open minded free thinker who just happens to use undefined values but doesn't question the reason for them. When people do not question something it is usually because they are afraid. Are you afraid you will be punished if you question?

I looked at the competencies again and I could not locate one that encouraged people to think. I would consider that an important attribute in such a small service. It used to be. What say you Mr. Strattard?

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Dennis, I'll answer your question.......AtoN. The Coast Guard always does AtoN right.

How about minimally manning the buoy tenders? Is this the right thing?

[ETC Brian Strattard]

I am pretty good at reading implication. Since you decided to use Moore and not, say, G. W. Bush about skewing facts; it would seem you have a bias.

And there is nothing wrong with being bias regarding a issue, being bias is having a opinion... That is not a sign of disrespect. I used the first example that came to mind, it is just an example (and a good one at that), the same as you listed above...does that mean that shows your bias/opinion is against our President??? No, it is an example, the exact same way YOU support all of your arguments, with examples. If you read one of the examples links I gave in the Core Values thread, it came right from a leadership exercise where it stated "Have the students think about and discuss" the Core Values. No history books say "think about what happened in the past"...that is what the teacher prompts the students to do...are you saying that you just have your students read and not think??? The CG has implemented measures into our leadership courses and with our Core Values to hold our members accountable...a concept you seem to overlook again and again by claiming that everyone who posts in argument with you is disrespecting you but then you talk crap about anything that anyone posts that has absolutely nothing to do with you. I myself am a Chief Petty Officer, you were (keeping in traditions) most likely piped ashore as Mr. Wells upon retirement. Yes, no? If I am selected for CWO then feel free to hit me up with the misters...

Strat sends...

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

And there is nothing wrong with being bias regarding a issue, being bias is having a opinion... That is not a sign of disrespect. I used the first example that came to mind, it is just an example (and a good one at that), the same as you listed above...does that mean that shows your bias/opinion is against our President???

Well, I do not care for Bush as a president. I do not know him personally but do have a co-worker who's father did "work" with Dubya in New Orleans. Many second hand tales but, if ture, even by half, are very interesting. I believe he has replaced a number of former presidents from the worst list.

If you read one of the examples links I gave in the Core Values thread, it came right from a leadership exercise where it stated "Have the students think about and discuss" the Core Values. No history books say "think about what happened in the past"...that is what the teacher prompts the students to do...are you saying that you just have your students read and not think???

Well, history books have made such comments. Others advise the reading of more history to understand the topic better. I have students read and listen before they think. I have the explore the topic before forming an opinion, just like I have on others.

The CG has implemented measures into our leadership courses and with our Core Values to hold our members accountable...a concept you seem to overlook again and again by claiming that everyone who posts in argument with you is disrespecting you but then you talk crap about anything that anyone posts that has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Here is where the lack of historical knowledges raises its head. The Coast Guard implemented core values because they are part of an executive (Clinton) directive for the entire federal government to embrace TQM. They only tell you the other because they either do not know, or do know and don't want to admit it. There are those whom have made a career out of this.

I myself am a Chief Petty Officer, you were (keeping in traditions) most likely piped ashore as Mr. Wells upon retirement. Yes, no? If I am selected for CWO then feel free to hit me up with the misters...

My ID card has MCPO on it. Sometimes, the more knowledgeable at the local Army post call me Master Chief. Several prior navy and coast guard students call me Master Chief. And no, they would not dare pipe a chief ashore as "Mister" that would be against Coast Guard regulations as well as disrespectful.

Congratulations on warrant.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Wow Bill, you found something negative to say about AtoN as well. I didn't see that coming. I could have been in the bell tower of the Ole North Church will Paul Revere himself, and not seen that one coming.

In case you don't have a desk calendar handy, it's 2007. We, the Coast Guard, don't have minimally manned buoy tenders. We have optimally manned buoy tenders. The times changed. We can now have one person at the helm with a DGPS do what it used to require 3 people with sextants and a plotting team to accomplish. There's a big spool on the deck so hauling chain doesn't take a team of 17 non-rates. Caramahans put the light, solar panel, and battery into one compact unit that weights about 4 pounds. We no longer have any 8 battery battery racks hooked up in series. We need less people and less cutters to cover the same area we used to. Yes Bill, going to optimally manned buoy tenders was the right thing to do. The Coast Guard boast roughly a 97% aid availablity rating. That's pretty close to perfect Bill. Now someone smarter than me, or more positive about the process than you, could probably show us how the number of reported mishaps has declined since the newer optimally manned buoy tenders came on line, but you're probably just looking for a way to highlight the 3% that we still need to correct to worry about that. You can call those AtoN boats anything that you want,.....but they're getting the job done.

[ETC Brian Strattard]

ahhhhh...don't jinx me yet!!!;) My marks carried me past the first cut but my experience may be detremental to me on my resume. Historically I have about a 50/50 shot at it...realisitically I'm not expecting big things...just hoping and carrying on.

Thanks though...

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Stuart,

What is the difference between optimally manned and minimumly manned?

The real difference ... in billets.

Has any of the new tenders did a time and motion study of the billets with respect to increasing the billet strength? If something was optimally manned, there would be no need for additional billets with the time and motion study agreeing the billets assigned was the correct amount. The two would always be synchronized, and any additional tasking would be accompanied by the additional billets to accomplish that tasking. [Damm ... am I dreaming or what! ... if I listen carefully I hear tatoo callin' "da plane ... da plane"]

[BMC John Phillips III]

Well Brian, I wouldn't count on lack of time in (I won't call it experience because I believe experiences happen on different timelines for different people). Anyway, the reason I say that is because there are changes coming down the pipe (or is it pike?) for CWO. From what I heard they are considering making the window smaller for applying due to too many people taking warrant and retiring two or three years later. In other words, they want some longevity in the CWO ranks. To me, that says, make them earlier, when you know you will have them around longer. If what I read goes through, then you and I are both good candidates to rank well enough to make it. I guess the downside to that is it will slow down how many make it in the future. But if you read the earlier posts with what they are doing with giving people orders regardless of if they make it, it makes sense. It seems as if they are setting it up so that only people who truly want to be a Warrant Officer even bother applying.

Good luck.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

It seems as if they are setting it up so that only people who truly want to be a Warrant Officer even bother applying.

John,

Why can't those Chiefs who don't want to be considered for Warrant just tell their supervisors not to waste their time recommending me?

I took the CWO Aptitude test once, back in 81 ... and always told those who were doing the recommend me, don't bother wasting the time, I have no intentions of being a Warrant. I guess the brown cow with white spots and the white cow with brown spots question was a little obtuse. :)

So they retire in a couple of years. If you want to change that rule, change the personnel manual stating you have to stay x years after accepting Warrant. The same applies to PO1, CPO, SCPO, and MCPO.

Is the change you got through the grapevine really needed or is it OER fodder?

[ETC Brian Strattard]

Joe,

The process for CWO is started by the individuals via E-resume. The commands do the recommending via E-resumes, so it is the members themselves that are doing the initial applications...however a lot of things change between the year and a half it takes between submitting an E-resume and actually getting promoted...the hurry up and wait game never gets old...;)

Strat sends...

[BMC John Phillips III]

John,

Why can't those Chiefs who don't want to be considered for Warrant just tell their supervisors not to waste their time recommending me?

Joe, like Brian said and I don't know if you are aware, but currently CWO is the only advancement (promotion/ascend whichever you prefer) where you get to turn down your orders. That doesn't sit well with OPM. Too many people were working the system. Applying for CWO, taking the 8 or 9 test and taking whichever offer came up best. I "think" they are trying to gear it more towards eliminating the plan A/plan B-ers from the people that actually want to be a CWO and are willing to take whatever jobs that are available in order to do so.

I don't really understand the fodder question but I believe the change is necessary.

[MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)]

...I looked at the competencies again and I could not locate one that encouraged people to think. I would consider that an important attribute in such a small service. It used to be. What say you Mr. Strattard?

Bill,
Under Leading the Coast Guard I would say "Strategic Thinking" not only encourages it (thinking that is) but to become proficient in it you must think.
Under Leading Performance and Change I would say "Decision Making and Problem Solving" requires you to think, i.e. to make a conscious decision you had to think about it. "Creativity and Innovation" also require you to think. To be creative you have to think about what your going to create. "Vision Development and Implementation" also would require you to think. How else could you envision something if at first you didn't think about it.
These are what I would say are "obvious" ones that require you to think, in reality though, all of the Coast Guards Core Values require you to think, just think about that.

Craig

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

John,

CIM 1000.6A 5.C.25.e will inform you on how you can turn down CPO, SCPO, and MCPO. This shoots a hole in the theory that CWO is the only one where you can turn down orders.

No orders, no advancement. That's the way it's been for as long as I remember.

5.C.25.f describes the penalty for turning down the advancement to any enlisted grade, see 5.C.25.e for CPO, SCPO, and MCPO penalties.

I can agree the folks at OPM don't like dealing with the plan A/plan B types stringing them along, but that's part of the game some people play. And as we know from CIM 1000.6A, there is a price to pay for declining an advancement in the top three enlisted rates. This might be the thrust of your "intel", to bring CWO advancements on par with declining a top three advancement.

Changing things for change sake is nothing but planting bullets for someone's OER [fodder].

[YNCM Doug Squires (Ret)]

5.C.25 dos not gurantee you will not be transferred. 5.C.25 says you do not have to accept advancement. But under the Senior Enlisted Assignment Policy it can and often does work like this:

Chief Jones: Hi Sir, Chief Jones Here. Look, order to that 378 are not my cup of tea, I think I will decline advancement to Senior Chief and stay here.

Detailer: Well Chief, you can decline advancement, but you are still going to that 378!

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

So true Doug.

Besides, some billets open annually so you'd liable to get the billet you declined.

I did however, saw a message where one CPO refused orders and stated he would not re-enlist. Another CPO got those orders and the one who refused, could only re-enlist with permission from G-PE [at that time] ... probably with a set of orders to the place he "refused".

RILO still comes to mind on some of the senior enlisted orders/advancement scenarios.

[MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)]

Joe,
I'm not sure about advancements, but for transfers, an otherwise retirement eligible member can request retirement in lieu of execution of orders (RILO), PERSMAN 12.C.11.a.3. The sticking point is the word request. Give me a few weeks and I'll tell you how it really works, my message and letter went out today...

Craig

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Craig, it works as described above. You always have to add a human factor with a chance of abuse. I know a person who, about seven years ago (?), turned down advancement to MCPO and Warrant within a week (?) of each other. He was a geo-bachelor and already had orders getting him closer to home. Accepting either MCPO or Warrant would have cancelled those orders and sent him in the other direction. During his last transfer he was told if he didn't like his options he could always retire.
And for those people thinking of using the retire in lieu of orders option as leverage..........be ready to retire. There are people who used it and were retired in about thirty days. They did wait until they were tour complete, they were retired in lieu, and the paperwork started as soon as the request was issued.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Stuart,
In case you don't have a desk calendar handy, it's 2007. We, the Coast Guard, don't have minimally manned buoy tenders. We have optimally manned buoy tenders. The times changed.

Always so negative. The only difference between minial and optimal are the words themselves. The former is negative and the latter is positive - at least in the world of government speak.

I really don't care how the technology has changed or the percentage of aids in service. The point of my initial remark (which was not negative toward AtoN) was to illustrate that minimal manning will have a negative impact on the Coast Guards future. The fewer people who serve will mean less to form a cadre of experienced people in case that cadre is needed for a general mobilization in the future. However, you will notice that the officer billets were not cut. Why was that? Does not the technology apply to them as well?

I put about 18 months on a 180 and learned much but not about my rating.

The Coast Guard should look to the future and not to any immeadiate cost saving which was the primary charge for minimal manning just as it is in the merchant fleet.

To bad they took the junior GMs off the tenders. It was a good platform to learn independent duty and hone other skills. I knew a couple "professional" 180 GMs who retired BOSNs.

Minimal manning is bad, optimal manning is worse because it belies the situation.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Bill, Have you ever been undrway on a Minimally manned cutter? No then dont try and pretend you know anyhting about it. Can you sit at your desk and researched what used to takle days or even weeks but now is doen in seconds? If yes, then you are now a minimally manned reseach assistant. Move on.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill, Have you ever been undrway on a Minimally manned cutter? No then dont try and pretend you know anyhting about it. Can you sit at your desk and researched what used to takle days or even weeks but now is doen in seconds? If yes, then you are now a minimally manned reseach assistant. Move on.

I spent about a week over a Christmas aboard a 210 with about 45 people once. We got underway with about 30 on a 180 once too. Yep, been there but without the technology to help. I also spent a couple months filling the BM1 billet on an Ice Patrol as well as doing my other jobs.

My problem with minimal manning, that you agree that is what it is, is not the technology but the short-sightedness of the policy. It is the fulfillment of an immeadiate need not a future one.

Your analogy of research is incorrect. The internet while reducing time it takes to locate materials it has also expanded the amount of material available by ten fold. Therefore, the research has to spend more time refining search strategies than ever before.

Also, the thought processes to define search terms need to be more exact to filter through the masses of materials.

My research now takes me days longer than it used too because I may check libraries around the world (well, except the CGA library). However, I have found some wonderful material. Have you ever checked the library resources of Mystic Seaport? Great stuff.

I've seen many articles discussing information overload on students these days. Sure, it used to take longer to thumb through books but there is some much more to see today. One other point. Digitzation of articles and other text did not begin until the mid-1980s. Some companies (such as JSTOR) are going back putting older materials on line. The same for some newspapers. Otherwise the old indexes and finding aids are our only souces. Poole's Index is a good source for material from late 18th and early 19th century. The Reader's Guide to Periodicals Index is another for the late 19th century to the present.

It is not a simple as you make out to be.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Technology breeds efficiency. Just ask anyone that worked in the automotive industry 30 years ago. Guess what... Now there are more autos being built by less people and of better quality (overall). It is not a difficult concept to wrap one's mind around. Certainly easier than operating a computer.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Always so negative. The only difference between minial and optimal are the words themselves. The former is negative and the latter is positive - at least in the world of government speak.

I really don't care how the technology has changed or the percentage of aids in service. The point of my initial remark (which was not negative toward AtoN) was to illustrate that minimal manning will have a negative impact on the Coast Guards future.

For the record, I only read the part that I posted. Which is becoming more and more frequent with me and Bill's posts. That's ignorant I know, so really if anything Bill, having you here has made me dumber. Thanks.

Anyway, I quoted the above to show that now not only are you failing to read anything others have to say, you are not even reading what you are saying.

Case in point, the former is negative (which is ironic, because of the two Master Chiefs quoting each other, you are the former) anyway, then you turn around next sentence and say you were not saying anything negative even though you just said minimal was negative and optimal was positive. Now unless I missed a double negative in there somewhere (rendering your post positive) you were speaking negatively on ATON, the only other out you have is that you were simply being negative about whatever it was that BMCM Slesh was going to say. Face the facts Bill, you are a sad and negative glass half empty kind of person. It would nice if just once, you glass was half full or even better, completely full of something other than the usual swill you have been spewing around these boards.

[BMC John Phillips III]

This shoots a hole in the theory that CWO is the only one where you can turn down orders.

Joe, it is sad that "theory" has become such an ugly word in today's society. Einstein would be so upset.

Seriously though, I know I did not really elaborate on what I said that well and to their credit others have brought up points or exceptions. But I think what I was trying to get across is the disparity in the assignment process with applying for warrant, not taking it and what it does to the entire process. This is mostly an issue with incumbent OIC's, EPO's and other critical fill billets. I hope that makes a little more sense.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

For the record, I only read the part that I posted. Which is becoming more and more frequent with me and Bill's posts. That's ignorant I know, so really if anything Bill, having you here has made me dumber. Thanks.

Is is possible to make you dumber? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Case in point, the former is negative (which is ironic, because of the two Master Chiefs quoting each other, you are the former) anyway, then you turn around next sentence and say you were not saying anything negative even though you just said minimal was negative and optimal was positive.

This is why I don't use big words around my dog. OK, I dislike quoting myself but here is what I wrote, "The only difference between mini[m]al and optimal are the words themselves. The former is negative and the latter is positive - at least in the world of government speak." Two sentences. The second modifies the first. Negative of the second is a modifier for the word minimal and so on. There was no mention of people in either sent sentence. However, you then do an about face and agree with me. Minimal in the context of manning a vessel is negative whereas optimal is a positive description.

You may want to add those reading and writing competencies to you want list as well as those I was shown that involve thinking skills.

Then, of course, comes the usual Parthian shot. Yawn*

Face the facts Bill, you are a sad and negative glass half empty kind of person. It would nice if just once, you glass was half full or even better, completely full of something other than the usual swill you have been spewing around these boards.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Is is possible to make you dumber? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Bill, don't be sorry, I actually thought that was funny! It was refreshing to feel another emotion other than annoyance from you.

Oh and I did read the rest this time, but I found it to be disinteresting and full of word twists.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

That's it! It is "government speak"? That is the root of the problem as I see it. I don't perceive everything that ever came out of HQ as "government speak". In fact, most things (certainly not all), I see as someone trying to make improvements. Technology is a good thing when it is properly applied. If it improves the efficiency of what we do (government) then great. Maybe we can do the same missions and new ones with lower overhead by applying technology? Sounds like CAPATALISM to me. But then again, I am just a BM so maybe I am confusing capatalism with "government speak". Certainly the military (which we are) cannot operate like "business" so therefore, I must be wrong. Improving efficiency, lowering overhead costs... No, that can't be what we are doing in the Coast Guard.
And Bill, just for the record, you say you never question anyone in war... or was that battle? Anyway, it was something to that effect. (I could go back and quote it, but it is not that big of deal to me) But then you also said that once your were told to shoot some folks that you did not percieve as an immediate threat, and you told the officer to do it himself if he wanted it done (or something to that effect). First, if the situation is as you say, I applaud your moral courage and respect your decision. You were obviously in a situation that I have never been in. However, this seems to fly in the face of what you have been saying. Just one more contradiction.

[MSTCS Dave McClintock]

Wow. Please, please, PLEASE Chiefs that know me, when I retire this November, drive to Illinois and smack some sense into me if the enjoyment I find in my retired life is to hang out on a computer and search for a debate. I think I speak for the masses (yes, I could be wrong) when I say we all appreciate the passion you bring GMCM (RET), but there are other things to do when you earn (RET). Let some line out, you will always be GMCM (RET) on this board even if you post only once in awhile.

Shread if you must...

[MSTCS Dennis Noble (Ret.)]

Senior McClintock:

As a retired MSTCS myself, I wondered whereabouts in IL do you plan on retiring? I have a daughter and the two youngest grandchildren in IL. If you care to put it off line, please do.

Just interested.

Thanks

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Sounds like CAPATALISM to me. But then again, I am just a BM so maybe I am confusing capatalism with "government speak". Certainly the military (which we are) cannot operate like "business" so therefore, I must be wrong. Improving efficiency, lowering overhead costs... No, that can't be what we are doing in the Coast Guard.

Jim, There is a contradition in your comment. You state that efficiency is simple capitalism. However, the coast guard ' "cannot operate like "business" ' in its operations because it is not a for profit company. I believe you misunderstood my stance against minimal manning.

Minimal manning may be good for the overall budget (although the coast guard is still doing more with less) but it is not good for the future. It limits the number of people with expertise who will be the core of the future. A military service needs to train and ready itself for the future as well as the present. If the efficiency of today entails greater costs in funds and live in the future then there is no efficiency. Minimal manning is a short-sighted approach to readiness. If the efficiency is to strip funding from one program and give it to another it is just "government speak."

And Bill, just for the record, you say you never question anyone in war... or was that battle? Anyway, it was something to that effect. (I could go back and quote it, but it is not that big of deal to me)

If what I say is the centerpiece of what you will base your remarks then it should be a "big deal" to you and those reading. They don't know if you are dealing with the quotation correctly or not. Next time, find the quote.

But then you also said that once your were told to shoot some folks that you did not percieve as an immediate threat, and you told the officer to do it himself if he wanted it done (or something to that effect). First, if the situation is as you say, I applaud your moral courage and respect your decision. You were obviously in a situation that I have never been in. However, this seems to fly in the face of what you have been saying. Just one more contradiction.

No, the question was about illegal orders. The order was illegal under the ROE and no one was being threatened by a 30-foot sampan speeding away from us.

If one is to show a contradiction it would be wise to show how it is a contradiction with direct quotes and situations. Otherwise it is just a personal attack on one's character.

[AMTCM John Long]

John,

CIM 1000.6A 5.C.25.e will inform you on how you can turn down CPO, SCPO, and MCPO. This shoots a hole in the theory that CWO is the only one where you can turn down orders.

No orders, no advancement. That's the way it's been for as long as I remember.

5.C.25.f describes the penalty for turning down the advancement to any enlisted grade, see 5.C.25.e for CPO, SCPO, and MCPO penalties.

Joe,

There was a loophole in the PersMan. Here's the scenerio....a member is knowingly in a position to promo off of two consectutive lists, yet is not above the cuts on either list. The member could submit a message to (1) remove his/her name off the current Advanvement List and (2) stay on the 2nd list (a loophole)PRIOR to making the revised cuts or initial cuts for either list. The member would come off the 1st list, could not compete for 3rd SWE cycle (penality IAW the PersMan) yet not need to because the member would promo off the 2nd SWE list (loophole mentioned earlier). Sounds confusing but it's a loophole that I think is supposed to get fixed on the next revision if it hasn't already.

John

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

John,

Sounds like a pretty convoluted scenario to me. Typically if they are not above the cut, there is no decision to make until the potential to advance is real.

[S/A Gerald Griner (PSC)]

Wow. Please, please, PLEASE Chiefs that know me, when I retire this November, drive to Illinois and smack some sense into me if the enjoyment I find in my retired life is to hang out on a computer and search for a debate. I think I speak for the masses (yes, I could be wrong) when I say we all appreciate the passion you bring GMCM (RET), but there are other things to do when you earn (RET). Let some line out, you will always be GMCM (RET) on this board even if you post only once in awhile.

Shread if you must...

Dave:

Just let me know where and when, and I'll be waiting there, black leather gloves and all...:D

[MSTCS Dave McClintock]

Gerry, you are close enough to Champaign Illinois that I would expect you to follow through with your offer if you see me posting more than the rare occasion I do now on the board when I get MSTCS (Ret)! :D

[AMTCM John Long]

John,

Sounds like a pretty convoluted scenario to me. Typically if they are not above the cut, there is no decision to make until the potential to advance is real.

Joe,

Sorry it took so long to find/respond to this.....

That was the loophole. Based on the member's situation.....THE member could have requested to come off the first list PRIOR to being confirmed above the cutoff(s) on both lists. Now the catch.....EPM will argue that is not the intent of the rule even though the wording of the PersMan inadvertently could allow it. One could do it, have EPM try to deny it, then file an appeal against their decision with CG Legal/External Legal and/or file a BCMR. Gee....how do I know all that??????

Anyway....one would have to weigh all the factors involved before going down that road. It would affect a few folks if/when the member was successful in their appeal. Hindsight being what it is, sometimes it is a little wiser to just let it go and move on.

John