Once A Chief Always A Chief? Not Here

[FSC LANCE HOLVOET]

Ok, I'm going to throw one out here on the ability to of active CWO's (read former CHIEFS) being able to post on the board. I'm not trying to throw a wrench in what the founders of this great site have done, however I think we need to visit the idea. All fence jumper jokes aside, I think we are cutting out a huge portion of our community. You basically have two types of CWO's, those who put being a CHIEF behind them once they make the transition, and those that still proudly wear the anchor under the boards. These are the same CWO's that still show up at CCTI's. The same ones that would likely post here. And yes the point could be made by some that they made the career choice and no one forced them to put on boards. But we preach once a CHIEF always a CHIEF, well it seems to me that we need to live up to that at least for the purpose of this active duty board.

There are indeed some non CHIEF CWO's out there, so maybe we could find some way for them to verify they had been a CHIEF. I mean we let the PCPO's post but we are going to tell former CHIEFS they can't?

Obviously, someone I know tried to join (on my trumpeting what a great thing this is) only to be told no you can't because you aren't a Chief. Excuse me? "Once a CHIEF always a CHIEF", I didn't know that we can pick and choose when that particular covenant is applicable. This something we say we believe and I think that using it to our discrimnation sends the WRONG message.

We also are losing a huge base of opinion on not only all things CHIEF but also what is going on in the (excuse me while I choke this out) wardroom.
Some of the best information that we ever got on the messdeck was from a salty CWO who hated to even eat in there but used it to the crew's advantage when needed. Why? Because he wore that anchor still. I think the same premise extends to this board. We are not gaining anything by restricting our former (not ex) CHIEFS but we certainly are losing by saying you can only be our brother when it suits us.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I'm with you. Let them put their former rate as their sign on name and have at it. I'd be willing to exchange points of view with any CHIEF. I know CHIEF Warrant Officers who are more active than most Chiefs on the mess, let them have their say.Who do we have to notify to make this happen ?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I agree, ALL Chiefs should be able to join in on the discussions. Maybe the person who referred them can vouch for them being a Chief?

[admin]

The designated Members of the Board have discussed this option and decided it is not in the best interest of the forum. Although, “Once a Chief, Always a Chief” is a time-honored belief, it has never been considered an open invitation to a Chief’s Call. The wardroom and the Chief’s Mess are separate entities, each with an individual role in this organization.



We value the insight and contributions that the warrant officer community has offered both to the service in general and the Mess in particular. We hope that they will continue to read the discussions and voice their opinions either through the guest essay section or through a willing Chief.



If, in the future, there is a significant call to include warrant officers in the discussion forum, we will reconsider this option. To date, the response has been lukewarm, at best.

[ITC Jon Rigsby]

Admin,
I think you misread the original poster; he was not asking to include Chief Warrant Officers, but asking for inclusion of a large group of Chiefs that are currently excluded...


Jon

[MKC Jo Ledbetter]

There are many outstanding Warrant Officers in our midst at work and at CPOA functions. There are also many O1-E, O2-E, etc. that were (are?) outstanding Chief Petty Officers. How do you propose that the Chief's Call board members verify that CWO Jones or Ltjg. Smith is a Chief Petty Officer in disguise?

The sign on page of this website clearly states:

1. Use your full Coast Guard name (eg. BMC Steve Smith)

2. Use your global email address. This is how it is verified that you are a Chief. No one searches any deeper into your CG records (and that's a GOOD thing). You are simply "looked up" on the global and you are in.

No one is descriminating against officers, Warrant or otherwise. It's all in the name of the website, "The Chief's Call." When is the last time an officer or a retired Chief spoke at or attended a Chief's call uninvited? I realize many retirees and CWO's attend the Chief's Call at the CCTI look away ceremony. Some messes allow that - Most do not. Usually the only members welcome to attend Chief's call at any time are active duty and reserve E-7, E-8 and E-9.

I am certainly not arguing that "Once a Chief, always a Chief" is a true statement. It is. To me "Once a Chief, always a Chief" exemplifies the respect, esteem, and consideration we have for one another following a fellow Chief's retirement, promotion, or demotion.

[ETCS David Kroll]

I have to agree with Jo on this one. The Chief's call is, and always has been the one place that only active duty Chief's get together to talk about their issues. CWO's and LTJG's are not included in these local "calls" nor should they be included here. Whether they like it or not, they now have the wardroom to discuss their issues. They can still however be active members of the CPOA and this is the forum most messes use. Are we missing out on some valuable input? Maybe. But these threads have the clear issues that we as Chief's are dealing with. THe CWO's. LTJG's, LT's that are prior CPO's have their "O" issues which perhaps, may be mixed in with CPO issues.

I suggest we keep it as a true Chief's call.

I sure hope my boss (CWO2) doesn't read this. :eek: :D

[BMCS Joe Wright]

I believe in the fact that this site was founded on the premise that Active Duty and Reserve E7, E8, and E9's could discuss issues as they see them in today's current social climate and today’s current Coast Guard climate.

I do not believe we should allow others to post their opinions here. These are issues as discussed by current chiefs on current issues.... just like in the mess.

I absolutely believe that there are many good people out there that could offer great input to our discussions. Not just CWO's, retiree’s or prior enlisted officers but anyone who has ever been in a leadership position. If I have an issue that I need help or guidance with I will continue to discuss it with all of my mentors and chain of command. (That includes chiefs, CWO’s, and officers) However, this site is not based on that. “Once a chief, always a Chief”, ABSOLOUTLY, and if I can assist or help any current or past Chief Petty Officer, I will! But that is not what this site is about. It is about today’s Chiefs, in today’s Coast Guard, discussing today’s issues, as Chiefs see fit.

If someone has a topic they really would like to be discussed they can submit a guest essay.

I am glad to here that the CWO’s are reading and are interested in what is said here and I hope that they have someone that is willing to pick up the ball and start a similar web site for them.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And all I'm saying is that if they want to sign on and share their view, I would be open to it. Not their voice as a Warrant, their voice as a Chief......under the premise once a Chief.........
I've never seen a mess where a CWO had to be invited first. Once you've worn the anchors you'll always be my brother or sister, and I'd be proud to have you in my midst. The C in CWO still stands for Chief doesn't it ?
But I digress.....it's not my board, I'm just glad to be allowed to express my views on it. I will abide by the rules of those who created it, and yield to their wisdom.

[OSC Thomas Jackson]

I am still undecided on this issue, but I thought that some good points have been brought up. I will probably repeat some of them but here are a few points to think about:

1. When you are a PCPO and are running around for signatures, you are frequently asked "did you go see CWO/LT so and so, he/she used to be a Chief".

2. When you attend the CCTI, the CWO'S (ex-chiefs) are there to attend, not just to watch.

3. Several CPOA meetings have CWO'S/LT'S attending and having equal say.

4. Some Chief messes do allow CWO's to join them in discussions.

There may be some issues that Chiefs are not comfortable disussing around officer types. It's a hard choice and requires a little more thought.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

I'm on the fence as well. A few more points to consider though:

I have seen those in the BM rate who went CWO because they didn't, couldn't or wouldn't attend or pass an OIC review board. (required for E-8)

I have seen BM's who decided E-7 was enough for the same reason.

At my present unit we have a mess of 6, we have a CWO who pays dues and frequents the mess for companionship and some meals. We are OK with that, but when he transfers the same courtesy will not be automatically extended to his replacement.

By the same token, both our EO and OPS officers are LT's (former BMC and MKC) who are respected for their knowledge, but have travelled a little too far toward the dark side :D They still ocasionally have a meal with us underway, but that is about the extent of it. Being new here I don't know if that is our choice, their choice or unwritten LAW.

Back to the question. I think there are those within the mess (actual and virtual) that ask advice from both Officers and Warrant Officers on different issues. I think those E7-E9's allowed here can pass that info along just fine. I think we may lose some valuable 1st hand info, but I think the 2nd hand info can be transferred adequately. I vote Nay

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

A friend of mine is addressing the issue in an actual Mess. His main argument against allowing prior Chiefs into a Chief's Call centers around their command relationship with the Chiefs.

For example, what if one of the Chiefs wishes to ask for guidance in getting along with his supervisor, and that supervisor is a warrant/LT/CDR who has been granted access to the Mess based on his former Chief status? The ability to air a problem has been compromised.

And, in an actual Mess, aren't we also putting these former Chiefs in an awkward position? They may feel the need to keep things from the wardroom heard in the Chief's Call, or keep things from the Mess heard in the wardroom. They'll have to juggle loyalties and professional responsibilities.

I grant you that this forum is different, in that we allow everyone access to our discussions. But, I guarantee that adding officers to the mix will alter the dynamic. We won't have the same lively discussions, because we are accountable for how we address officers. I don't want to have to tiptoe in my responses because of military protocal.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Was there a change of heart ? I signed on and saw the "welcome to our newest member"-CWO2 Strozeski.

[admin]

No change of heart. "Applicants" names will appear as soon as they complete their attempt at registration. They are removed when we verify their identities and discover that they do not fit the critiera. They can't post unless we approve their membership.

[SKC Ronald Brumble]

Question

If you start allowing the lower enlisted to join will that open up to higher ranks also???

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

There will be a separate discussion board for the junior enlisted. We'll put in for the upper ranks if there is an interest. "The Unvarnished Truth" will remain unchanged.

[FSC Gary Hills]

Wow! I can’t believe what I am reading. I thought “once a chief always a chief”, but based on the comments in this thread, I’m not sure all my fellow chiefs believe that.

I can’t understand why some units have to invite the CWO’s to a chiefs call while other units don't allow them attend at all. I thought “once a chief always a chief.” It was stated that their presence may put others in an awkward position. What ever happened to “what’s said in the mess stays in the mess?” Am I to believe that CWO’s will not honor that code?

I put my faith and trust in the mess when going through CCTI in the hopes of joining the hallowed fraternity of chief petty officers. I thought that once you became a member of the hallowed fraternity your brothers and sisters would always be there for you. I thought “once a chief always a chief.” It saddens me to think I was wrong and that I may have to give up my anchors when I make CHIEF Warrant Officer.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Let me ask you this, Gary. Would you allow the Group Deputy Commander to attend the Chief's Call, if he were a former Chief? If so, how would you expect him to juggle his responsibilities to the CO and his obligations to the Mess?

[MKC Tony Balcer]

Gary,
That's right bro. And when you get those shoulder boards come June yo ass is out of here!
Kicked off because you turned your back on the Mess. :D
It's more like this. Think about how it is on the ship, the CWO's are allowed/encouraged to participate in Mess functions and are always welcome to come in and shoot the breeze. But I have never seen either of them at a Chief's Call. Hell, they didn't even make my CCTI. That's funny, I haven't thought about it until now. They are allowed to pay their dues or not as the case may be. It's like a funny grey line. That's why CWO's are the bastards of this organization. They don't belong anywhere. I guess that's why they formed their own organization.
Senior Chief Endicott,
I have actually run in to this situation when I was on the 210. XO was a former Chief. He was a good XO and a hell of a ship mate, He offered the mess support and guidance, but always from a far. I think that in the 4 ½ years I was on that ship I only saw him in the Mess one time and that was to talk to the COTM. It was like he knew and respected the Mess, but understood that he had moved beyond that in his career. Not above, just beyond. One of my best friends is a CWO and one time he told me that the hardest part about making CWO was weaning himself from the Mess. He said that you can't be a part of the wardroom and a part of the Mess at the same time. It just don't work.
This is my charge to you Gary; when you get those shoulder board and have been in the wardroom for a while, tell me what you think then. But make sure you knock before you enter. :p
Tony

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

That's sad. If that's the way we feel about "once a Chief ALWAYS a Chief" we should stop saying it. People give up their particapation in the Mess by choice. Some of them while they're still E-7s, 8s, or 9s. People that turn their backs on people who go CWO or O don't really believe in the principles that they are preaching. I accept anyone who has paid their dues regardless of their current position or duty status.
Dennis, if that Deputy is coming into a Mess I'm at as a fellow Chief, I'll treat him as a Chief. If he's coming in as the Deputy, I'll treat him as the Deputy. If he abuses the priviledges of the Mess, I'll treat him like anyone else who doesn't adhere to the code of the Mess. How he juggles his responsibilites is his problem, not mine. That conflict of interest and the attitudes of others is probably what keeps people from visiting the Mess.

[FSC Gary Hills]

Senior Chief Endicott,

I would allow the Group Deputy Commander to attend if he once wore the anchors. "once a Chief, always a Chief” He has earned that right. As far as him juggling his responsibilities as the CO and his obligations to the Mess, I'd expect him to act like the chief he is. And like everybody else, if he can't honor the code, "what's said in the mess, stays in the mess" then he would not be welcomed back.

Tony,

You've got it all wrong; I'm not the one turning my back on the mess. By not honoring "once a chief, always a chief” the mess is turning their back on me and every other chief that moved along in their CG career. If you and the rest of the mess truly believe that I am turning my back on you, then with a heavy heart, I will not return. Just let me know how much I owe in dues!!! ;)

As far as the 2 CWO's from the ship not attending your CCTI, not one person from the mess made it to my CCTI, but there were plenty of other chiefs there to welcome me to the mess. Just like there were plenty of CWO's there to welcome you. I personally saw 4 CWO's at your CCTI.

PS Thanks for the charge, but my days of CCTI have long been completed!

One soon to be "bastard of the organization" sends.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

I am truly trying to understand this mindset.

So, the Chief's Mess of any given unit must give equal voice and consideration to any individual that was once wore the anchors?

When the crew speaks of "the Mess" they are referring to both the obvious Chiefs and the XO (in the example we discussed), the warrant officers, and any retired Chiefs that may want to attend?

Instead of the Chiefs getting together to present an issue to the XO, the XO becomes part of the decision-making process?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Dennis...your example is a little extreme. Does it happen, Yes. Is it common, No. So, in the XO scenario the mess will have to define boundaries as to when it's appropriate to discuss issues with the XO in the mess. Based on his position at the unit, the XO shouldn't put himself in those situations.

I think we should get some input from the CWO's out there...Oh, there not allowed in this mess.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Deane. Sarcasm???

Answer my first two questions.

[OSC Thomas Jackson]

I'm not trying to stir the pot or anything. All I have is one question. Have the Chiefs ever been invited to sit in on the Warrant Officers Meetings? (i.e. breakfasts, lunches, etc). It seems that if we are expected to treat them as a Chief (once a chief, always a chief), do we get the same respect from the Chiefs that made Warrant? I am not trying to cause any hate and discontent, I was just wondering.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Dennis...I hope these are the 2 questions you are referring to. If not, please let me know.

1. Would you allow the Group Deputy Commander to attend the Chief's Call, if he were a former Chief?

Yes, if he was a former Chief.

2. If so, how would you expect him to juggle his responsibilities to the CO and his obligations to the Mess?

The XO and the COTM will have to have a discussion about this. Both have a responsibility to the CO and both need to have clearly defined roles within the mess. Not every issue will the COTM want the XO sitting in on and the XO shouldn't put himself in a bad position.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Tom, I'm not inviting them as a Warrant, they're coming as the Chiefs they will always be. Warrants aren't inviting us to their meetings because we never were Warrants. They've paid their dues to the Mess, we haven't paid ours to them.

Dennis asked...
So, the Chief's Mess of any given unit must give equal voice and consideration to any individual that was once wore the anchors?

Yes. That's what the Mess is SUPPOSE TO DO. Apparently many are not.
Really listen to the words that are spoken at the next "Look Away Ceremony" you attend.

Gary, some of us will continue to give you all of the respect that you've earned, and you'll always be welcomed at any Mess I attend.

[MKCM Roger Ward]

This is the first time I have replied to a forum like this one. I like what have read so far. Opinions are good and they stimulate thought from others. So I have been stimulated (not sure that's good). Here is my thought of the Warrant issue. This is purely my point of view from my observation over the last 39 years. Commandant has decided we need Warrants, so I will follow his lead. I have heard the phrase "Once a Chief always a Chief". I think it has been misunderstood by many. Here's my understanding. The phrase means to me that though you are not a chief any longer, you still maintain the Chiefs values and code. With that, former Chiefs should be shown respect from the Mess, but they should be treat as guests. I have seen Warrant Officers sitting at the Chiefs table without being invited and entering the mess without knocking. This undermines the very institution they supposedly hold dear. It is important in a military organization that we know our place with in it. If we change our career paths for what ever reason we need to take on that role. Making the choice to go Warrant Officer does not mean you get the best of both worlds. They have become part of the Ward Room, that was their choice. I'm diappointed to see that so many Warrant Officers are not proud of the dedicions they made, but it does make me smile that they keep trying to come home.

Regards,

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Well said, Master Chief.

[BMCS Roland Ashby]

I think Master Chief has made a very interesting comment. I had never looked at it that way before.

[MKCM Roger Ward]

Had a situation recently were CWO's were welcome to a Chiefs call to talk about a couple of command issues. It was passed that "what is said in the Mess stays in the Mess" at least 3 times. One of the W4's broke the code. I won't say more about the situation, but having officers in Chiefs calls can create compromising situations. I still stick to my original remarks, if you once wore an anchor and don't now you should be treated as a guest and should be invited to special events such as CCTI and other activities. Of course respect is a key word, it needs to run both ways. We need to know our place in the organization. OUT

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Yes Master Chief, but I know Chief's who don't keep that same code. I have heard things repeated outside the Mess on countless occasions. I stand by my origin statements as well. I wouldn't be inviting them in as officers, and those that didn't act as Chiefs would be told that they were no longer welcome. Without knowing the whole situation......I......would have confronted that loud mouthed W-4, looked him or her in the eye, and told them, that the lessons that they should have learned during their CCTI...didn't take. They have no honor, no integrity, and no business in any future conversations with me. Regardless of what ever rank they now or ever have held, they are not now, nor have they ever been, a Chief. They are also sad excuses for Warrants and you shouldn't judge all Warrants for their short comings. But I would let them know that they are the reason some people have problems with Warrants.

[MKCM Roger Ward]

Senior Chief; I think you missed my point. I wasn't judging anyone. Of course we have Chief's with loose lips too. What I was saying, having Officers attending the units Chiefs Call where you are discussing personnel and unit issues can create compromising situations (especially for the Officers). Would you please go back and re-read my posts. I'm not trying to omit officers that once wore anchors, I want them to take their place as a repected and honored guest, just not decision makers in the Mess. It is important to maintain the Chiefs Mess integrity.

Regards,

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I take direction well. I've re-read your post and it still sounds judgemental to me. Labeling everyone for the actions of one or a few seems judgemental to me. As for any conflicts they might have to encounter by returning to the Mess.....that's on them. Life is full of compromising situations, if you can't stand the heat......... And I'm all for mantaining the integrity of the Mess. I must just be dealing with smaller Messes than you. Some of the Messes that I have attend had CWOs as their most active and contributing members. Just as some have retirees as their most active and contributing members.

"Making the choice to go Warrant Officer does not mean you get the best of both worlds."
It should, and too many of us seem to want to make sure they get the best from neither.

The word "always" , should "always" mean the same thing. If not, let's change it to "Once a Chief, Always a Chief, as long as you "Always" wear the Anchors shiny side up." That would give the motto and in turn the Mess more integrity. As for me, I stand by "Once a Chief, ALWAYS a Chief." and I "always" will.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

I'd like to approach this policy, again. We definately have two camps of thought, here. If we can agree on a representative number of Chiefs to decide this issue, I'd like to put it to a vote.

So, how many Chiefs need to weigh in to confirm or alter the board's policy of only active duty and reserve E-7s, E-8s, and E-9s being approved membership?

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

The military, and this board, is not a democracy. You own the board, your decision. You can decide to keep them out, let them in, or put it to a vote.

If you decide to do a vote, my vote is to include ALL Chiefs: Active, reserve, retired, and even the BM's who couldn't pass the review board (ie: Warrants!).

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Thanks. But, my question is "how many Chiefs should weigh in?" I'm looking for a specific number that we would consider representative.

[BMC Chris Gempp]

Dennis,
Let everyone decide. Possibly create a new forum for other Chief's to decide who would let new members join.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

My communications skills could use some work...

Everyone that is a registered member could vote. However, we know that won't happen. What is the minimum number of members (1, 10, 100, 1000) that we would require to vote before we consider it a mandate and either make the change or carry on as before?

[BMC Chris Gempp]

I would say at least 10.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Dennis, How about looking at % rather then #'s. Ie. better than 50% buy in and the rules would change. If people don't care enough to vote to change, then they must like status quo. You know how many are registered.

[Bosn Robert Wilson (BMC)]

New to posting here, but have been observing for a while now. Seems to me that you would put it out there with a deadline to vote by. Those that don't respond should have no reason to complain about the results.

[BMC Mark C. Lewis]

I do we know that they where/are chiefs? When logging on at home how do we know it is them and not "Joe Smoe"? We are held accountable for our post how do we hold them accountable? Just some questions by the way just because I am asking does not mean I am not for it. I just think we need to address these issues?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I would say that you start a poll and list a deadline. The higher percentage dictates the outcome. One voice, one vote. The silent majority lives with the decision of the vocal minority. If you don't like the way the vote is going, put a fire under the seat of someone who hasn't voted.

As for Mark's issues. Retirees, Warrants, and Officers who wore anchors and wanted to join could contact an active duty Chief who could verify their status and sponsor them. They could use their former status as their screen name. And admin/board members could take the extra step before approving posting priveledges.

I'm all for it and am glad the subject is being revisited.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Under the original "Once a Chief Always A Chief" banner........I just talked to a Warrant friend of mine who will always be a Chief in my eyes. He is a vast warehouse of knowledge on all worldly things and has always be very active both in and out of the Mess. That activity has just come to an end. There was a secret vote held at the Mess he attends and they voted to ban any non-anchor wearing people from their Mess. He found out about this secret vote from a Non-Chief in the smoking area. During a casual conversation this person asked, "Why aren't you at the Cheif's Call ?" and then answered "Oh Yeah, that's right, they wouldn't have invited you because they're voting to ban you guys ?" What's said in the Mess..............Shortly after banning the Warrants from the Mess the COTM went to the Head of the Warrants Association and wanted the Chiefs to attend their Warrant meetings, so "we could continue to work together."
Once a Chief, Always a Chief, not here, not there...........Let's just quit saying it.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Let me play devils advocate here for a minute. What about "first name basis"? How does that play into the "once a Chief..." thing? I have some very good friends that are CWO's. Some that have even completely morphed into the full fledged "O" world. When we are not in "public" we are on a first name basis. Hell, they were once Chief's. The "secret vote" is dissapointing to me as it seems to go against the things that a Chief is supposed to stand for. Seems to me that there should be a clear distinction here. If someone chooses to leave the Chiefs mess for whatever reason, then that is thier choice. It does not mean that we should not network with them or be their friend. It is simply a choice that they made. If someone has access to both the Chiefs mess and the Wardroom, don't you think that there might be a conflict of interest there? Just food for thought. I have not made up my mind one way or the other yet, but sure love a good debate.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Frankly, the only things I saw wrong here, was that the vote was secret and some non-Chiefs were in the loop.