HMCS Saskatoon - drug use trials

[Edward Campbell]

I6 and PBI sorry guys but you're off the bat... you definitely can't liken the naval hierarchy to the way the infantry runs things. Command hierarchies fail sometimes, this time it failed the navy, I am not one for tradition but the Naval Divisional system works. I echo everyone else IMO, that if the CO was not informed then how can he be held accountable.

Because he IS the Commanding Officer; he doesn't get a choice.  If the command hierarchy fails then he fails, by definition - it's his damned command hierarchy.

I repeat: if I was the four striper in charge there would be a whole hockey sock full of below par PERs for the officers concerned. The ship was "bad" - who the hell, other than the CO and his officers, should be responsible?  We cannot blame senior NCOs - they don't get the glory, they cannot take (all of) the blame.  The Navy doesn't get the luxury of lousy leadership just because they have their own system.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Perfect Edward,

For all those who say that the CO is not responsible........just who would have had their smiling face in the write-ups [and promotion line] had this been receiving the "NATO Ship-o-The Year" award?

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

Edward I'll go one step further, maybe not the sr nco's are to blame, but the Warrants are (for navy speak P1-CPO1), The warrant is like a commision it is a legislated position of trust and authority.

 

[geo]

The Chiefs & POs certainly screwed the pooch - no doubt about it BUT, the Officers are the ones that are paid the big bucks and get all the glory ))  If the ship was such a sh!& pit, then please god, someone musta noticed and someone musta / shoulda been asking some hard questions.

 

[navymich]

...maybe not the sr nco's are to blame, but the Warrants are (for navy speak P1-CPO1)...

As noted in an earlier post of mine, on an MCDV there would be 2 personnel that would fit your criteria.  One of them is the coxn, the other is the Chief Engineer (typically a CPO2 or PO1).  Would you then look at it as "wow, only 2 people.  Not very many to shoulder the blame for a ship's company" or would you look at it as "There may only be 2, but given the small ship's company, that is on par with a reg force ship or (forgive me I'm not army literate) army company etc".  On top of that, you rule out the Coxn, as he was involved, leaving one member.  Not trying to put words in your mouth Arty....

The Chiefs & POs certainly screwed the pooch - no doubt about it BUT, the Officers are the ones that are paid the big bucks and get all the glory ))  If the ship was such a sh!& pit, then please god, someone musta noticed and someone musta / shoulda been asking some hard questions.

IF the killick that was most recently charged IS correct in saying that 1/3 of the ship's company was involved, we don't know who.  It could very well be the exact people that everyone is saying should have noticed everything, or brought it to the CO's attention at least.

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

Indeed I take your point, and the Coxn is being held repsonsible for his actions, the other if it is the case that 33% of the crew was using should be held accountable for thier inaction (again it is a big if, read my earlier post on the validaty of the killicks claim) If indeed 30% or more of the crew was activly using then (and this will bring outcry from the reserve world) RTU all of the crews (yes all) of the MCDV's and give new contracts for all positions, swap the reg force guys out with new reg force guys to provide a transparent process. This would cost a ton of money and is liekly not feasable, but the only way to gaurantee an untainted talent pool. This option however would look poorly upon pers that had nothing to do with the drug use. The question we have to ask now is not who to blame, the military justice system has done that, it is how do we prevent it from happening again.

PS Mich I agree that the very people who should have brought the CO in on things could very well be involved themselves (in one case he was)

 

[kratz]

To fire all MCDV crews (approximately 384 reserivists) and replace those positions with available, trained, suitable sailors would not be feasable as noted in the earlier suggestion. To do so affects roughly 17% of Naval Reservists currently working on the MCDVs and an additional 17% of the Naval Reserve in backfilling those postions.

Of the entire Naval Reserve, an average of 38% are known to be employed in established year-round Class B or Class C postions. To change over the MCDV crews would affect manning in all other areas of responsibility for the Naval Reserve.

 

[navymich]

Not to mention the fact that if the MCDV's are still running as short-manned as they were this time last year, replacing the people currently onboard would be next to impossible.

As to how not to have it happen again?  I'll live in a dreamworld and say that hopefully everyone has been scared enough by the releases and charges of the current personnel involved that they will keep themselves out of any similar incidents.  Others might say that this will only give some a better idea of how to keep themselves out of the notice of future prying eyes and ears.  I'm sure we could all come up with numerous ways to have it not happen again.  Sadly, I doubt this is the end of drug use in the CF.  Whatever the position that we all currently hold, we can help out by educating our peers and our subordinates.  Every little bit helps.

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

Hence why I said it would be costly and likely not feasable, the other option is to go back to the way the system worked with the pig boats. The core crew provided by the regular force and augmented by the naval reserve. That is the Naval Reserve area of responsability... to force generate and augment the regular force, as it is for all reserve branches, it's just that due to manning shortages since the early 90's the NavRes has had to stand up and do a wee bit more than augment, as in recent times the militia, med reserve, and commres has had to do since 9/11. but remember I did say not likely feasable, and very costly.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Indeed I take your point, and the Coxn is being held repsonsible for his actions, the other if it is the case that 33% of the crew was using should be held accountable for thier inaction (again it is a big if, read my earlier post on the validaty of the killicks claim) If indeed 30% or more of the crew was activly using then (and this will bring outcry from the reserve world) RTU all of the crews (yes all) of the MCDV's and give new contracts for all positions, swap the reg force guys out with new reg force guys to provide a transparent process. This would cost a ton of money and is liekly not feasable, but the only way to gaurantee an untainted talent pool. This option however would look poorly upon pers that had nothing to do with the drug use. The question we have to ask now is not who to blame, the military justice system has done that, it is how do we prevent it from happening again.

PS Mich I agree that the very people who should have brought the CO in on things could very well be involved themselves (in one case he was)

That's the same thinking that gets a whole Regiment CB'd because little Billy snuck off and got drunk. Find the lawbreakers and punish them. Collective punishment of people who have done nothing wrong is the cheap, easy, lazy and disgusting way of dealing with it. Highly unfair and breeds nothing but contempt for the people that should be ( and getting paid for) making the right decisions, but take the easy way instead.

You want to find and punish the offenders? Start with random drug tests on a regular basis. From the Captain down.

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

That's the same thinking that gets a whole Regiment CB'd because little Billy snuck off and got drunk. Find the lawbreakers and punish them. Collective punishment of people who have done nothing wrong is the cheap, easy, lazy and disgusting way of dealing with it. Highly unfair and breeds nothing but contempt for the people that should be ( and getting paid for) making the right decisions, but take the easy way instead.

You want to find and punish the offenders? Start with random drug tests on a regular basis. From the Captain down.

You have to remember I'm going on the basis of 33% of a ship's coy activly using cocaine, IF that is the case, which I highly doubt. don't get me wrong, I'm not a reserve hating reg force lifer, I started my career in the commres. What I'm saying is that the last time discipline was this poor in a unit it was disbanded, I'm not one to say disband the unit, or the MCDV's but maybe a crew swap even on the affected unit is not a bad Idea, or take all the mcdv's by trade throw thier names in a hat shake em up and start crewing the ships by name draw. That way you are spreading the bad apples and the good througout the nest. That may solve the problem there. Mix them up a little. heres a way tidbit it is alleged 33% of ONE UNIT was or is activly using drugs, in a recent drug test for TFA 1-08 16 of near 2500 mbrs tested positive for drug use (0.64%) do the math, if former LS Ennis is correct there are big problems in MOG 4.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

You have to remember I'm going on the basis of 33% of a ship's coy activly using cocaine, IF that is the case, which I highly doubt. don't get me wrong, I'm not a reserve hating reg force lifer, I started my career in the commres. What I'm saying is that the last time discipline was this poor in a unit it was disbanded, I'm not one to say disband the unit, or the MCDV's but maybe a crew swap even on the affected unit is not a bad Idea, or take all the mcdv's by trade throw thier names in a hat shake em up and start crewing the ships by name draw. That way you are spreading the bad apples and the good througout the nest. That may solve the problem there. Mix them up a little. heres a way tidbit it is alleged 33% of ONE UNIT was or is activly using drugs, in a recent drug test for TFA 1-08 16 of near 2500 mbrs tested positive for drug use (0.64%) do the math, if former LS Ennis is correct there are big problems in MOG 4.

I think that you're getting carried away a little with your analogy to the Airborne being disbanded as the same thing as this case...apples and oranges (I never agreed with that approach to the problem and neither did a lot of other people...it was all political). They didn't disband the Artillery Regiment in Pet when they busted a bunch of guys in the shacks for drugs, nor did the CO get shyte-canned...they sorted the problem, some people went to jail and the Regiment carried on...what exactly is everyone's major problem with doing the same in the this case? the problem has been sorted and new leadership installed in both the Captain and the Coxn's cabin. The Navy dealt with it and presumably the Admiral is happy with it or else he wouldn't have approved the promotion or the new command for the Captain.

 

[Michael OLeary]

You have to remember I'm going on the basis of 33% of a ship's coy activly using cocaine, IF that is the case, which I highly doubt. don't get me wrong, I'm not a reserve hating reg force lifer, I started my career in the commres. What I'm saying is that the last time discipline was this poor in a unit it was disbanded, I'm not one to say disband the unit, or the MCDV's but maybe a crew swap even on the affected unit is not a bad Idea, or take all the mcdv's by trade throw thier names in a hat shake em up and start crewing the ships by name draw. That way you are spreading the bad apples and the good througout the nest. That may solve the problem there. Mix them up a little. heres a way tidbit it is alleged 33% of ONE UNIT was or is activly using drugs, in a recent drug test for TFA 1-08 16 of near 2500 mbrs tested positive for drug use (0.64%) do the math, if former LS Ennis is correct there are big problems in MOG 4.

Isn't the crew size on an MCDV about 30-35 personnel?

Your analogy is a little weak once you water it down to "platoon" rather than talking about the disbanding of "units" for comparison.

Ever hear of a "bad" section in a platoon within a unit? Perhaps that is a little more realistic than comparing it to an entire task force.  Of that task force, were they any groups of drug test failures within a single sub-unit or sub-sub-unit?  If you had that data, it might change the perspective somewhat.

 

[3rd Herd]

pig boats

As I am old school and just a poor grunt I am confused.

Term: pig boat
Definition: Slang for submarine.
The Dictionary of English Nautical Language Database: Search Results
http://www.seatalk.info/cgi-bin/nautical-marine-sailing-dictionary/db.cgi?db=db&uid=default&FirstLetter=p&sb=Term&view_records=View+Records&nh=3

or it the boat the carires the pigs ?

Urban Dictionary: Boat Pig
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Boat+Pig

1. boat pig  

A term used to describe police officers (excludes the Coast Guard) who patrol the waters.

example:

The boat pig's caught us for dumping beer cans in Lake Erie

 

[hugh19]

The pigs are the old Gate vessels. I did 5 years on t hem and they where pigs.

 

[navymich]

"pig boat" was the nickname for the old Gate Vessels aka Porte Boats (Dauphine, De la Reine and Quebec on the West, St. Louis and St. Jean on the East)

Off topic I know, but I can't resist some naval history:

HMCS Porte de la Reine was one of five Canadian navy auxiliary gate vessels (the others being HMCS Porte Québec, HMCS Porte-Saint- Jean, HMCS Porte-Saint-Louis, and HMCS Porte Dauphine). They were affectionately christened "pig boats" probably due to the fact that they were built of the pig iron. The pig boats were brought into service in 1951 and 1952, right in the middle of the Cold War. They were designed to slide through the anti-submarine nets protecting the entries to the ports of Halifax and Esquimalt. They were particularly instrumental, however, in the training of reservists on Canada's East and West Coasts, as well as on the Great Lakes. They were also used in border and Fisheries patrols, and in the war on smuggling. Their characteristic silhouette became familiar not only to the regulars of the Halifax and Esquimalt ports, but also to several generations of naval reservists who sailed aboard the vessels. HMCS Porte de la Reine was decommissioned in 1996.

 

[3rd Herd]

Interesting, used to see them around Esquimalt harbour. Thanks airmich for expanding this poor grunts lack of naval knowledge.

 

[hugh19]

Actually they had pig iron for ballast. They were not made of pig iron.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Actually they had pig iron for ballast. They were not made of pig iron.

And I always thought it was because they wallowed like pigs in any kind of a sea!  ;D

 

[pbi]

I'm not talking about the drugs, per se. I'm not talking about switching out the crews. I'm not talking about whether the Res pers were Class C, B or Z. I'm talking about this statement from an experienced CPO:

The court also heard from Chief Petty Officer Leonard Hern, who was transferred to HMCS Saskatoon in January 2006 in order to deal with the drug problem.

"In my 38-year-long career, I have never seen such an appalling sight," Hern told the court. "The ship was disorganized, there was no discipline, and no trust among the crew."

Unless the CPO's word is not to be trusted (then why, pray tell, was he brought aboard...?) there was something sadly wrong with this little boat as a military unit. If that was true, then I do not understand how naval authorities were able to make a separation of the issue from the selection and promotion of the one person who can and must be held responsible for the state of the ship as a military unit.

If there is a logical explanation, good. It would be interesting to hear. If not, the message that this incident sends could not be better calculated to damage the trust of both the public and the CF in the officer promotion system. This is NOT a "private matter": it is a matter of public record, so let us not say anything silly like "we shouldn't  be talking about this because LCdr X is a jolly good fellow..."

Cheers.