Author Topic: Cutting the CF/DND HQ bloat - Excess CF Sr Leadership, Public Servants and Contractors  (Read 329610 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 453,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,050
Brigadier-General Patricia Samson was originally appointed Canadian Forces Provost Marshall as a Col in 1997, promoted BGen in the same year.   The final split of the INT Branch from the Security Branch happened in 2000 under her "Watch".



In 2000, a further split with the Security Branch occurred, with intelligence training moving from CFSIS at CFB Borden to the newly-formed CFSMI at CFB Kingston. This ended the formal affiliation of the Intelligence Branch with the former CFSIS.   ( http://www.intbranch.org/cold_war.htm )


The integration of Intelligence and Security was always a fiction. Putting the (then new) MP cap badge on the Int people and having a new Security Branch could not make silk purses from sows' ears. The Intelligence service was always separate - with its own Director General (and even, now and again, a two star Chief) while the MPs made do with a BGen or Col Provost Marshal.

The attempted merger was based on a wholly unsound appreciation of security, which also involved e.g. a very quickly aborted attempt by the security branch to intrude into COMSEC.

There is, in my view still a gap in DND's security apparatus which the MPs can never fill. Security and policing are different businesses and neither is closely related to intelligence work, per se (although security and counter-intelligence are related disciplines) - which is a problem with which CSIS is trying to wrestle, but that's a topic for another thread.

The machinations of the Security Branch had little direct impact on the intelligence folks - except to make them wince at their cap badge.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline cheeky_monkey

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 7,572
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 595
RMC has a BGen/Cmdre to oversee less than 900 OCdts. Why? Because the US service academies have a BGen, and it wouldn't be proper for Canada to be represented by a mere LCol at the RMC/West Point Hockey game.

Between the 13 ROTP Sqns + Otter Sqn we have between 950-1050. Sure we could bump Cmdre Truelove to Cdr, but them you'd have to bump DCdts down to Maj, all the division commanders down to Capt, and demote all the Squad bosses to Lt/SLt. You could even completely get rid of the Sqn Comds, and leave the OCdts in charge. The AMS head would need to drop down from Col, as we can't have him higher ranked than the Cmdt. Why stop there? CDA Comd no longer needs to be that of a GOFO does it? It's just a downward spiral from there.

The point here is that the Commandant does more than just babysit the Cadet Wing.

Speaking to staff rank-bloat - it's everywhere; even the RCSU down at Work Point is infested with Capt 10s doing MCpl clerk-work.

10 CIC Capt doing MCpl desk/clerk work? To me that's personnel bloat, not rank bloat.

Agreed (FWIW...) with the people questioning the need for FO/GOs in Commandant positions, especially at RMC. If you can get by with a single BGen as Director-General Reserves and Cadets: enormous, geographically diffuse organizations with tens of thousands of personnel involved (I know, he's in a staff role in relation to both, but still...), what need is there for the CO of RMC to be more than a Col? Perhaps a "high flying" LCol?
I'm unfamiliar with DGRC, however I don't think it's possible to compare DGRC and the RMC Cmdt. They're two different beasts.  The Cmdt has under him the Cadet Wing under the Cadet Wing Commander, the Mil Wing under the DCdts and the Academic Wing under the Principal. Fine, discount the Cadet Wing, but you still have hundreds of profs and associated staff in the Academic Wing (some military, holding rank from Capt to Col) and the Mil Wing, that while smaller in number, still has a LCol, several Maj/LCdr and a plethora of Capts. To drop the Cmdt's rank, you would have to axe too many positions below.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 11:12:32 by cheeky_monkey »
Verité, Devoir, Vaillance

Offline quadrapiper

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 283
10 CIC Capt doing MCpl desk/clerk work? To me that's personnel bloat, not rank bloat.
Capt 10 in the sense of IPC. There's probably half a dozen doing work significantly "below grade," whilst the summer training centres lose officer billets.

As to RMC, makes sense.

Here's a question; might get discussion going: why is there (at the higher levels) civil service involvement in the CF at all? Sure, if there's a specific gig that it makes more sense to hire a specifically-qualified civilian into, fill it with such, but what's the general gain to using civil service pers?

Offline TimBit

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 404
Quote
Here's a question; might get discussion going: why is there (at the higher levels) civil service involvement in the CF at all? Sure, if there's a specific gig that it makes more sense to hire a specifically-qualified civilian into, fill it with such, but what's the general gain to using civil service pers?

For discussion, I would suggest:
- Corporate memory (no postings)
- Specialized fields of expertise: can see that in CDI, Policy, Planning
- Traditional civil service fields of expertise: budgetting, policy, liaison with government (PCO, TBS submissions, MCs)
- Cheaper: for any given position civilian personnel are much cheaper than uniformed personel

Now, as has been discussed in other threads, if NDHQ was de-integrated and mil/civ functions better segretated, this would of course be moot.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 461,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,723
Between the 13 ROTP Sqns + Otter Sqn we have between 950-1050. Sure we could bump Cmdre Truelove to Cdr, but them you'd have to bump DCdts down to Maj, all the division commanders down to Capt, and demote all the Squad bosses to Lt/SLt. You could even completely get rid of the Sqn Comds, and leave the OCdts in charge. The AMS head would need to drop down from Col, as we can't have him higher ranked than the Cmdt. Why stop there? CDA Comd no longer needs to be that of a GOFO does it? It's just a downward spiral from there.
I took the number from the RMC website -- for the sake of a 50-150 pers difference, the logic remains.

And it's only considered a "downward spiral" if one has a vested interest in maintaining any particular sacred cow.
I even read works I disagree with;  life outside  an ideological echo chamber.

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 356,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,436
The GOFO question is, more precisely, a GOFOColEX question - the composition of the General, Flag, Colonel and executive public servants in  DND/CF is in dire need of re-examination.

The "Our allies want these ranks" is a canard brought out far to often (Hello, Kingston - in many locations, not just RMC) which, in turn, justifies rank creep and bloat underneath.  I recall chatting with one staff officer who pointed out that the CF has a grand total of one military-required 3* position - DComd NORAD.

However, I won't fight the DS solution there, so my somewhat streamlined Army would have:

LGen - Commander
MGen - Deputy Commander
MGen - Reg F Div Comd
BGen - Reg F Div D Comd
3x BGen - Reg F Bde Comd
BGen - Support group commander (owns the ASUs/ASGs)
BGen - Training systems commander

2x BGen (Res) - Res F div commanders, each div with 3x Res Bdes (commanded by Colonels)

This would eliminate 4x Res BGen positions, reduce the number of CBGs from 10 to 6, and remove the Area construct; the latter two would provide resources to re-invest in other HQs should they need strengthening with their increased span of control, and leave some left over for new initiatives.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 206,882
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,537
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
About 30 years ago we had 110 GOFOs, and we had a much larger CF.

Not only that, but I wonder if the increase in GOFOs mean an increase or "rank creep" down the CoC? What I mean is many years ago a job done by a corporal is now a sergeant's job. Is this going on or is it just my imagination?
« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 12:34:39 by Jim Seggie »
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 453,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,050
OK, my guesstimate

A bunch of Cmdres/BGens:

•   Pacific and Atlantic Fleet commanders (2)
•   Regular Army Brigade Group Commanders (4)
•   Air Force Group Commanders (Fighter, Transport, Maritime Air, Training) (4)
•   Reserve Army Brigade Commanders (4)
•   NDHQ Directors General and Miscellaneous/International (40±)
Sub-Total: 55±

Some RAdms/MGens:

•   Regional Commanders (Pacific, Western, Eastern, Atlantic) (4)
•   Army Division Commanders (2) (No Deputy Commanders)
•   Air Division Commanders (2) (No Deputy Commanders)
•   SOFCOM Commander (1)
•   NDHQ and Miscellaneous/International (25)
Sub-Total: 35±

A few VAdms/LGens:

•   DComd NORAD (1)
•   CANMILREP NATO (1)
•   CDLS(W) (1)
•   J3 (COS Joint Staff)  (1)
•   CDS (1)

Sub-Total: 5

TOTAL: 95±
But, by law, to be less than 100 until the total paid strength of the CF exceeds 150,000 all ranks.

Notes:
1. Chiefs of Staffs (2 each – one for Ops/Int and one for Admin (Pers) and Log) in Regional Commands and Divisions to be Navy Captains or Colonels who will wield real power. There should never be more than about 150 Captains and Colonels so that promotion to that rank is a near guarantee of entré to the GOFO ranks.

2. Commanders and Lieutenant Colonels to be the first level executive rank: all ‘Directors’ and equivalents to be Cdrs/LCols, never Capts/Cols.

3. Promotion to LCdr/Maj to require some levels of advanced training or examination.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

aesop081

  • Guest
•   Air Force Group Commanders (Fighter, Transport, Maritime Air, Training) (4)

You cam eliminte those right away as there are no more of the old groups in the AF. The ghosts of some them continue to haunt some of us though.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 115,455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,333
  • Honey Badger FTW!
I looked at this while doing a little project with ranks at work - I don't have the list here, but I plotted out the GOFOs to see who was where.  The DSA list isn't entirely accurate as some have retired - I counted 114.

Looked at my data - I have 106 GOFOs.  1 CDS plus (read 3 Star/2 Star/1 Star):

NDHQ:              2/5/8
Army:               1/2/9
Navy:               1/3/5
Air Force:         1/2/7
.COMs:             2/4/6
CMP:                0/3/8
Other L1s:        0/3/7
ISAF:                0/1/6
OutCAN:           3/4/10
ATL:                  0/1/1

Total:                10/28/67

Shuffling a general or cutting a position or two off of something as simple as a ratio of isn't really going to do anything.  Would the CF be better off with 95?  75?  A look at strategic organization will give you an idea of whether we have too many, not enough, or are just right.  Dapaterson points to the right direction with the Col/Executive issue as well - we have 21 L1s, of which all fighting forces belong to 4 (the Army, Navy, Air Force and CANSOFCOM).
« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 12:59:42 by Infanteer »
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Simian Turner

    is a humbled, curious veteran!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 36,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,308
  • Do the right thing; do the thing right!
- Cheaper: for any given position civilian personnel are much cheaper than uniformed personel

This is a completely separate issue, until pay equity was instituted over the last decade this was not the case as the CF member was paid far less.  I am not sure that the civilian is still necessarily cheaper when you take into account things like monthly Sick Leave entitlement, overtime, training etc.

I would submit that this is too broad a brush to paint the entire DND with.  Case by case you can make the argument go either way - is it return on investment, continuity of work, innovation, attendance or deliverables/output that you are using as the benchmarks besides what is 'cheaper' in dollars and cents. 
« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 13:30:51 by Simian Turner »
The grand essentials of happiness: something to do, something to love, something to hope for.  Allan K. Chalmers

Offline TimBit

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 404
Hey I am NOT saying that the cost/benefit ratio of a civilian is better. But typically, "analysts" positions staffed at the LCol level have a good 15-20K difference with their civilian counterparts in SWE.

Offline Simian Turner

    is a humbled, curious veteran!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 36,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,308
  • Do the right thing; do the thing right!
I would disagree unless the position is over-ranked.  Equity is what Treasury Board has been striving for under the The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act 

"The legislation applies to the Treasury Board of Canada as employer for departments and agencies listed in Schedule I and IV of the Financial Administration Act, to separate agencies as employers for departments and agencies listed in Schedule V of the Financial Administration Act, to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to the Canadian Forces."


http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/media/nr-cp/2009/0206b-eng.asp
The grand essentials of happiness: something to do, something to love, something to hope for.  Allan K. Chalmers

Offline TimBit

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 404
But, plus the military factor. At 100K, that is 8K.

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 356,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,436
LCol Analyst: $100K.  Civ Equivalent:  $85K.  Plus pensionable at 25 years.  Plus health care (not provided by the province).  Plus uniforms.  Plus training.  Plus cost moves.

The full departmental cost of a military member is significantly higher than that of an equivalent civilian.


The choice of mil vs civ is not purely financial (nor should it be), but there must be a recognition of the additional costs the choice of military incurs.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline TimBit

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 404
Quote
LCol Analyst: $100K.  Civ Equivalent:  $85K.  Plus pensionable at 25 years.  Plus health care (not provided by the province).  Plus uniforms.  Plus training.  Plus cost moves.

The full departmental cost of a military member is significantly higher than that of an equivalent civilian.


The choice of mil vs civ is not purely financial (nor should it be), but there must be a recognition of the additional costs the choice of military incurs.

Exactly what I had in mind. Friends in SJS reported the same situation: same cubicles, same direct reports, same task template, 20k difference in salary. They are not complaining, to be noted, just observing.

Offline Simian Turner

    is a humbled, curious veteran!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 36,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,308
  • Do the right thing; do the thing right!
The choice of mil vs civ is not purely financial (nor should it be), but there must be a recognition of the additional costs the choice of military incurs....Plus health care (not provided by the province).

Agreed - unlimited liability and uniform...ity has and should have a price.   Cost moves are not limited to people in uniform, nor is training.

Continuity of health care (beyond band-aids) is more and more provided within the provincial construct but paid for using federal (DND/CF) funding.

« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 15:39:30 by Simian Turner »
The grand essentials of happiness: something to do, something to love, something to hope for.  Allan K. Chalmers

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 356,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,436
Agreed - unlimited liability and uniform...ity has and should have a price.   Cost moves are not limited to people in uniform, nor is training.

Continuity of health care (beyond band-aids) is more and more provided within the provincial construct but paid for using federal (DND/CF) funding.

Cost moves in DND are several orders of magnitude greater than the public service.

And public service training is significantly less expensive - Crew commander Leo II is pricier than Powerpoint level II.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline TimBit

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 404
Quote
And public service training is significantly less expensive

Consider this: I started in government as a Management Trainee, a program designed to fasttrack you to senior positions. Over three years, received a grand total of two weeks of training, plus a  day Project Management course.

that is it. Now no officer gets qualified with less than a year training (generally speaking), for basic qualifications. Quite a difference.

Offline Lex Parsimoniae

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 15,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 253
Exactly what I had in mind. Friends in SJS reported the same situation: same cubicles, same direct reports, same task template, 20k difference in salary. They are not complaining, to be noted, just observing.
Same work hours (actual not notional)??  ;)

Offline Simian Turner

    is a humbled, curious veteran!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 36,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,308
  • Do the right thing; do the thing right!
Cost moves in DND are several orders of magnitude greater than the public service.

And public service training is significantly less expensive - Crew commander Leo II is pricier than Powerpoint level II.

Somehow we have gone from comparing LCols to analysts to a Leo Crew Commander course and a Manager Trainee in a thread about Generals.  A bit of an increasing tangent.  At the LCol to General level I think the public servants' training and move credits are similar.  Enough said.
The grand essentials of happiness: something to do, something to love, something to hope for.  Allan K. Chalmers

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 35,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 898
Brigadier-General Patricia Samson was originally appointed Canadian Forces Provost Marshall as a Col in 1997, promoted BGen in the same year.   The final split of the INT Branch from the Security Branch happened in 2000 under her "Watch".
I don't recall exactly when she got promoted to BGen, I believe it would have been APS 99, but the BGen Provost Marshal was an anomaly that has happened once since I joined and you'll probably never see it again.  She was due to be promoted but as the changes within the Branch she orchestrated were still ongoing, they over strengthed the position until the end of her appointment as CFPM.  The structure is the CFPM is a Col, the DPMs/C*S PM/CO NIS etc are LCol.  IF more MP LCols are due to promoted and the CFPM position is filled, they go outside the Branch to be promoted.  Same happens when the CFPM finishes their tenure, if they have more years to serve and do not wish to retire, they go to positions outside the Branch, as happened with BGen Samson (to the Int Branch no less...) and Col Copper.

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 356,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,436
Same work hours (actual not notional)??  ;)

Nope.  Public servants don't take 1 hour at noon for PT and count it as working hours.


Back off tangent: the number of executive-level positions overall in DND, be it military Capt(N)/Cols and GOFOs or civilians is what needs to be put under the microscope, not just one side or the other.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

aesop081

  • Guest
Nope.  Public servants don't take 1 hour at noon for PT and count it as working hours.

How many of those public servants are required to maintain a certain fitness level or lose their job ?



Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 356,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,436
Unfortunately, in NDHQ one can see some military folks not maintaining their fitness without repercussion.

But this should not deteriorate into a mil/civ bashing discussion (and apologies if I've started to lead it down that path).

Ultimately, the quesiton is what amount high level help, mil or civ, is needed to lead and manage the CF and DND.  I think the general consensus is that we have too many generals (no pun intended). The question is where to make any reducitons - and as can be seen here, everyone has a different opinion, and everyone has their vital ground that they will protect.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html