• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CFRG and the broken recruiting system-Split

WOW!  Christie Blatchford is really holding no punches back with this National Post article:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

LINK

Christie Blatchford: The government doesn’t answer questions about its military recruiting mess

National Post, Full Comment
Christie Blatchford | April 18, 2014 7:02 PM ET

Now that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has put the Canadian Forces on notice that their presence is requested in Poland, I’ve no doubt the military will respond magnificently.

The PM announced on Thursday that Canada is sending six CF-18 fighter jets and some staff officers as part of the NATO effort to quell nerves in Eastern Europe, where folks are increasingly concerned that Russia’s Vladimir Putin may be, in the infamous words of a song from the old Mel Brooks movie To Be Or Not To Be and in the fashion of Adolf Hitler, pining for peace (“All I vant is peace… a little piece of Poland, a little piece of France”). NATO has put together a “reassurance package” for the Ukraine and its neighbours.

On the actual ground, in the actual air and on the actual water, the Canadian military rarely disappoints.

Most Canadians fail to understand what a bloody freaking miracle this is, how blessedly far removed are the men and women of the CF from the ghastly bureaucracies, chiefly the department of national defence but also veterans’ affairs, which purport to serve them.

I’ve spent enough time with Canadian troops, in Kandahar and before that in the former Yugoslavia and in armories here and there, to know how very good they are, and have come to love them. I also know that the senior command at NDHQ (national defence headquarters, for those blessedly unfamiliar with the world of acronyms that is the military) is riddled with inept flunkies who don’t give a rat’s ass about the average soldier’s or veteran’s lot.

As an illustration of what I mean, bear with me a minute.

Exactly a month ago, I wrote a story about how the CF recruiting system is a mess and quoted a report (done by the Defence Science Advisory Board, a private group that advises the defence department) which shows that it takes an average of 166 days for a recruit to be processed.

That’s how long it takes from the time some eager young sap walks into a recruiting office wanting to sign up.

The report, which was done by the DSAB for the military, was sharply critical of the CF Recruiting Group, and laid out the unhappy consequences — great candidates frustrated by delay and lost to the CF, good ones discouraged, kids who want to go to the Royal Military College thwarted by the fact that military selection boards aren’t held in a timely manner, etc., etc.

At the same time, leaders in the reserves or militia community — these are the citizen-soldiers who do part-time service — were warning that this year is shaping up as “a disaster” because of low quotas, the closing of recruiting centres and “long-standing inefficiencies in the enrollment process.”

I was subsequently distracted for a few weeks.

But by last week, I’d done more reading on the subject (recruiting has been a weak spot for the CF for years), had heard from a number of frustrated young Canadians whose applications are stalled without explanation in the system, and decided I’d like to know what Defence Minister Rob Nicholson had to say about it all.

I began on April 10 with the person identified on Mr. Nicholson’s website as his press secretary, Julie Di Mambro.

After explaining who I was and why I was writing, I said, “I write to get Minister Nicholson’s comments, whether directly or through you, on all this. In particular, how concerned is he by the DSAB report? What steps is he taking to make up for the deficit of some 700 new reserve recruits this year? Will reserve units get more money and bigger quotas next year?”

I gave her my deadline, so she would know I needed his comment quickly.

That evening, I got a cheery email from a public affairs officer in DND named Tina Crouse, who said my note had been passed onto her.

She did not respond to a single one of my questions, except to say the process to recruit “tomorrow’s brilliant warrior… does take time” and that “every application is treated with great care and attention”, blah, blah, blah.

It arrived about 4 p.m. It was five paragraphs long. It was not responsive to my questions.

I replied, in part, with this, “Ma’am, respectfully, has anyone read the DSAB report?” or any of the other reports documenting the glaring weaknesses of the recruiting system?

“In short,” I said, “it seems quite clear that every application is not treated ‘with great care and attention’ and that significant problems persist…I’m happy to use the ‘response’ you sent, but it is hardly responsive to the questions I asked. And frankly, I expected better.”

Ms. Crouse replied with a “Sorry, that’s all we’ve got for you.”

I forwarded that note back to Ms. Di Mambro that evening, expressing my condolences on the sudden death of former Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, that I understood folks might be preoccupied, but emphasizing it was Minister Nicholson’s comments I wanted, “not the folks in whose decided interest it is to minimize the problems.”

Referring to Mr. Flaherty’s death, I said, “I appreciate today was a tough day for you all,” and noted that I was putting the story on hold for a few days for that very reason.

I told Ms. Di Mambro I was now writing the piece for Saturday, April 19 — or a week hence — and politely asked for the minister’s response.

Six days later, by which time I’d heard nothing from Ms. Di Mambro, I wrote again.

“Just want to be sure there’s no misunderstanding,” I said, “as I’ll be writing the story tomorrow for the Saturday Post. I plan to say something like this, ‘Given repeated opportunities to speak on the recruiting-is-a-mess issue, the minister had no comment and referred questions to a public affairs officer.’ I gather that still holds true?”

About eight hours later, I received a note from one Johanna Quinney, apparently Mr. Nicholson’s new press secretary, Ms. Di Mambro having become the director of communications.

Ms. Quinney told me “We’ve been working on a response and we’ll have something for you tomorrow [Thursday].”

By 1:30 Thursday, I’d heard nothing, and wrote Ms. Quinney again, asking for an ETA, noting that, “Never in my bleeding life did I imagine it would take a week-plus to get a comment from a government minister.”

Two hours later, I phoned her. She sounded flustered, and explained things were a bit crazy because of the PM’s announcement earlier.

(I confess, I barely restrained myself from saying that unless Ms. Quinney was flying one of the CF-18s over to Poland, she should get her ass in gear.)

I told her if I didn’t have a response from Mr. Nicholson by 5 p.m., I’d assume there was none coming.

It arrived about 4 p.m. It was five paragraphs long. It was not responsive to my questions. It said sweet bugger all. It was ministerial horse manure and it took seven days to get it.

As for the folks heading off to Poland, their government does not deserve them. But I deeply envy them the distance they will get to put between themselves and the clowns at home.

A very sad commentary on the state of affairs in National Defence.

More on LINK.
 
She sounds like a petulant child in that article. Paint all of NDHQ with the same brush because she didn't get (in her mind) a timely answer from a PA.
 
GINge! said:
She sounds like a petulant child in that article. Paint all of NDHQ with the same brush because she didn't get (in her mind) a timely answer from a PA.

It's the job of PA to inform in a timely manner.  A week is way too long to respond in ANY way to a reporter, especially when ADM(PA) expects PA to touch base with media within 2 hours of ANY media query, even if it's only to say they are looking into things.  Having the reporter repeatedly call, especially one who is well known is just asking for trouble.
 
IMO she succeeds in achieving her outcome - painting the MND's office in a bad light.  How Mickey Mouse of that office....
 
I'm with Strike. Simply courtesy, if nothing else, demands either a reasonable prompt reply or an explanation re: why a delay is likely.

Ms Blatchford is, broadly, a 'friend' to the military and, by extension, to the Department. It's not as though DND and the CF have so many surplus friends that they can afford to insult them.

----

I asked a question of the MND late in 2013; it was, I believe, an informed and polite question on a policy matter. Like Ms Blatchford I got a vacuous bit of PR pablum. I sent the question to a mid/high level functionary in the Conservative Party, with a copy of my 2013 donor tax receipt, suggesting that any Canadian, donor or not, was entitled to a better response than the one I received. I got a proper response about a week later.
 
Also she did not contact PA. She contacted the MND who, as an elected official, beholden to the people. She wanted a reply from the ministers office but was sluffed off to military PA.
 
Strike said:
It's the job of PA to inform in a timely manner.  A week is way too long to respond in ANY way to a reporter, especially when ADM(PA) expects PA to touch base with media within 2 hours of ANY media query, even if it's only to say they are looking into things.  Having the reporter repeatedly call, especially one who is well known is just asking for trouble.
Gotta wonder how many OK's (and how high) were needed to make the response take that long?

Tcm621 said:
Also she did not contact PA. She contacted the MND who, as an elected official, beholden to the people. She wanted a reply from the ministers office but was sluffed off to military PA.
DND's not the only department where questions to the Minister get responded to by the public affairs bureaucrats.

E.R. Campbell said:
I asked a question of the MND late in 2013; it was, I believe, an informed and polite question on a policy matter. Like Ms Blatchford I got a vacuous bit of PR pablum. I sent the question to a mid/high level functionary in the Conservative Party, with a copy of my 2013 donor tax receipt, suggesting that any Canadian, donor or not, was entitled to a better response than the one I received. I got a proper response about a week later.
Is that what it takes?  That's sad, but thanks for sharing that.
 
milnews.ca said:
Gotta wonder how many OK's (and how high) were needed to make the response take that long?

I hear ya, but that's no reason why someone couldn't have contacted her at least the day later to let her know where they were.  Heck, she called them and let them know she was delaying the article due to the news du jour.
 
It looks like she is getting her answers as quickly as our career managers are getting their budgets for cost moves and those of us due for posting are getting our messages.
 
Strike said:
I hear ya, but that's no reason why someone couldn't have contacted her at least the day later to let her know where they were.  Heck, she called them and let them know she was delaying the article due to the news du jour.
Assuming the info gets passed up (and I'd bet a loonie it most certainly does), then one has to wonder about the priorities of those higher up (timely response vs. message discipline response that won't cause any waves).

A reminder from the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada:
.... Ministers are the principal spokespersons of the Government of Canada. They are supported in this role by appointed aides, including executive assistants, communication directors and press secretaries in ministers' offices, and by the senior management teams of government institutions, which include deputy heads, heads of communications and other officials.

Ministers present and explain government policies, priorities and decisions to the public. Institutions, leaving political matters to the exclusive domain of ministers and their offices, focus their communication activities on issues and matters pertaining to the policies, programs, services and initiatives they administer ....
 
milnews.ca said:
Gotta wonder how many OK's (and how high) were needed to make the response take that long?

Indeed. I would say all the way to the top slots in the corporation, given that its concerning the DSAB report.

It was this tough-guy remark from Christie that irked me - "I confess, I barely restrained myself from saying that unless Ms. Quinney was flying one of the CF-18s over to Poland, she should get her *** in gear."

If she's serious, she demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the staff effort (some may say churn) involved in sending the six pack out the door. It's more than just 6 pilots strapping in.

And then there was the actual title of the article in the National Post which was as fols:

"SOLDIERS AND FLUNKIES. DND's Bumbling bureaucrats are letting our fighters down" and this line: "I also know that the senior command at NDHQ  is riddled with inept flunkies who don’t give a rat’s *** about the average soldier’s or veteran’s lot."

After working in Ottawa, and seeing the hours that the senior staff put in (most of whom have had their fair share of time in a LAV turret / CLP / Sub / Cockpit / trauma bay)  and working with them at my own HQ and CJOC and SJS, Blatchford could not be further from the mark when she accuses them of being 'inept flunkies' who don't give a rat's ass about the troops.

Her response to have a 1 day / 7 day RFI response time is to deduce that all senior staff are flunkies? C'mon Christie, you're better than that.
 
GINge! said:
Indeed. I would say all the way to the top slots in the corporation, given that its concerning the DSAB report.

It was this tough-guy remark from Christie that irked me - "I confess, I barely restrained myself from saying that unless Ms. Quinney was flying one of the CF-18s over to Poland, she should get her *** in gear."

If she's serious, she demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the staff effort (some may say churn) involved in sending the six pack out the door. It's more than just 6 pilots strapping in.

If you haven't met or know Christie Blatchford, then it may surprise you that that is how she calls it.

GINge! said:
And then there was the actual title of the article in the National Post which was as fols:

"SOLDIERS AND FLUNKIES. DND's Bumbling bureaucrats are letting our fighters down" and this line: "I also know that the senior command at NDHQ  is riddled with inept flunkies who don’t give a rat’s *** about the average soldier’s or veteran’s lot."

After working in Ottawa, and seeing the hours that the senior staff put in (most of whom have had their fair share of time in a LAV turret / CLP / Sub / Cockpit / trauma bay)  and working with them at my own HQ and CJOC and SJS, Blatchford could not be further from the mark when she accuses them of being 'inept flunkies' who don't give a rat's ass about the troops.

I can agree with you on some counts, and agree with her on many.


GINge! said:
Her response to have a 1 day / 7 day RFI response time is to deduce that all senior staff are flunkies? C'mon Christie, you're better than that.

I don't know where you work, but that doesn't sound unreasonable to me, for a "RFI".  If it were ATIP, then much longer would be expected.  'Flunkies' do have a tendency to screw up the most basic of passage of information.  Would you deduce any differently?
 
GINge! said:
Indeed. I would say all the way to the top slots in the corporation, given that its concerning the DSAB report.

It was this tough-guy remark from Christie that irked me - "I confess, I barely restrained myself from saying that unless Ms. Quinney was flying one of the CF-18s over to Poland, she should get her *** in gear."

If she's serious, she demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the staff effort (some may say churn) involved in sending the six pack out the door. It's more than just 6 pilots strapping in.

And then there was the actual title of the article in the National Post which was as fols:

"SOLDIERS AND FLUNKIES. DND's Bumbling bureaucrats are letting our fighters down" and this line: "I also know that the senior command at NDHQ  is riddled with inept flunkies who don’t give a rat’s *** about the average soldier’s or veteran’s lot."

After working in Ottawa, and seeing the hours that the senior staff put in (most of whom have had their fair share of time in a LAV turret / CLP / Sub / Cockpit / trauma bay)  and working with them at my own HQ and CJOC and SJS, Blatchford could not be further from the mark when she accuses them of being 'inept flunkies' who don't give a rat's ass about the troops.

Her response to have a 1 day / 7 day RFI response time is to deduce that all senior staff are flunkies? C'mon Christie, you're better than that.


I was one of those, many years ago ... 12 hour days were the norm for my boss (a two star) and me (then a three striper). But both he and I recognized that several of the 60ish hours we 'worked' each week were unproductive and a few were even counterproductive. He was often kept for "busy work" that added nothing, except some political cover, for the MND or Associate MND or even for a young political staffer.* The DM of the day, Robert Fowler, tried to bring some sense to our system but he was stymied by weak political and military leaders managers. I doubt things are a whole lot better today - if anything the large number of large HQs suggests, to me, that things are likely worse.

_____
* Whenever my boss discovered that it was a young staffer, not the MND's COS, who was jerking our chain he retaliated, often cruelly, through the aforementioned Mr Fowler, who seemed to actively enjoy ruining young, power-mad, staffers' lives.
 
GINge! said:
After working in Ottawa, and seeing the hours that the senior staff put in (most of whom have had their fair share of time in a LAV turret / CLP / Sub / Cockpit / trauma bay)...

Ha!  Not in my trade!

And when it comes to media, we live in a 24/7 news hour cycle.  If Ottawa doesn't want to officially reply to an RFI in a timely (ie - usually within 24 hrs) manner, they risk the reporter getting the answer from somewhere else and raising a much bigger shit storm.
 
- Considering the GOOD press she has given us over the years, I am left wondering if the spin artists holding the fort were even in puberty when we first deployed to the "Sandbox of Sorrow." Otherwise they would have known of her value.

- Perhaps they are a new generation of assistant who have never read a newspaper, or were told at J school that if they were caught reading the National Post, they could not graduate, and therefore have no idea that some journalists actually LIKE soldiers.

- You can bet Christy has more time 'outside the wire' than the people writing her the form letters.
 
TCBF said:
- Considering the GOOD press she has given us over the years, I am left wondering if the spin artists holding the fort were even in puberty when we first deployed to the "Sandbox of Sorrow." Otherwise they would have known of her value.

- Perhaps they are a new generation of assistant who have never read a newspaper, or were told at J school that if they were caught reading the National Post, they could not graduate, and therefore have no idea that some journalists actually LIKE soldiers.

- You can bet Christy has more time 'outside the wire' than the people writing her the form letters.

Well said. Points inbound.  :bowing:
 
I've met Ms Blatchford.

Formidable.....and quite blunt when she needs to be.

 
Ms Blatchford is the only journalist I would willingly talk to. She has a knack of bringing up military topics which concern me, but that I have no control over in order to fix. Recruiting is just one more thing she is tackling that weighs heavily on my mind. The lack of recruits is slowly killing us right now and I am glad (ecstatic?) that she is looking into it.
 
GINge! said:
She sounds like a petulant child in that article. Paint all of NDHQ with the same brush because she didn't get (in her mind) a timely answer from a PA.

Disagree.  She called it as she saw it.  The PAO wasn't who the answer was asked to in the first place.  Did you read the article???
 
GINge! said:
It was this tough-guy remark from Christie that irked me - "I confess, I barely restrained myself from saying that unless Ms. Quinney was flying one of the CF-18s over to Poland, she should get her *** in gear."

If she's serious, she demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the staff effort (some may say churn) involved in sending the six pack out the door. It's more than just 6 pilots strapping in.

Or, for some unknown reason, you missed the context and meaning of the comment.

Look at the steak, not the peas. 

Not sure you will convince the line folks that the desk warrior's have it harder, work longer, etc.  :2c:
 
Back
Top