Gov't/CF Hospitality: how much? who approves?

[ekpiper]

:goodpost:

My thoughts exactly.  Mistakes are human nature, but consistent mistakes require action.

Re: the band being fed meals at dinners,

Obviously that would be entirely impractical, as you could have half as many band members as there are guests. So not the same meal, but if they order a few pizzas and some drinks, I'm certain that mostly no one would complain.

 

[Pusser]

Obviously that would be entirely impractical, as you could have half as many band members as there are guests. So not the same meal, but if they order a few pizzas and some drinks, I'm certain that mostly no one would complain.

The bulk of the cost of a mess dinner is the staff, not the food.  The labour required to prepare the food for the band is not significantly greater than in preparing it for the diners and since they are not being waited upon (thus no requirement to pay additional servers), feeding the band the same meal as the diners is not overly expensive.  The fact that it makes things logistically simpler is a pretty strong argument to feed the band the same meal as well.  I've often done it this way.

 

[q_1966]

The bulk of the cost of a mess dinner is the staff, not the food.  The labour required to prepare the food for the band is not significantly greater than in preparing it for the diners and since they are not being waited upon (thus no requirement to pay additional servers), feeding the band the same meal as the diners is not overly expensive.  The fact that it makes things logistically simpler is a pretty strong argument to feed the band the same meal as well.  I've often done it this way.

On ship, logistically from a money perspective that might make sense, but having pizza brought in for the duty watch and crew that are not attending the cocktail party is a welcome break for the cooks on a ships deployment who may or may not be sailing short already. Putting in long hard hours, maybe an 18hr day if they are duty watch plus helping the cocktail party afterwards (meaning going to bed at midnight if lucky, waking up early the next day at 530am to be open for another 12hr duty watch,
Of course they will not get that time back due to "Operational Requirements" but that's why they call it a Cock-tail party.

 

[OldSolduer]

Would it not be better to punish the idiots who abuse it (that "accountability" thing), rather than introduce even more rules that make everybody else's life even more difficult?

There's a novel idea. 

It seems we at the coal face are held accountable but the ivory towers aren't.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Would it not be better to punish the idiots who abuse it (that "accountability" thing), rather than introduce even more rules that make everybody else's life even more difficult?

THAT would make far too much sense.....

 

[Edward Campbell]

Would it not be better to punish the idiots who abuse it (that "accountability" thing), rather than introduce even more rules that make everybody else's life even more difficult?

Probably ... but our political, bureaucratic and military leadership is much more accustomed to reflexive, "close the barn door after the horse is gone" sort of management, plus the abuses, which I repeat are real and widespread, (we, most of us, anyway, seem unable to use the inch we are given, we want the whole mile and we try to take it) sometimes involve pretty senior people - punishing them is difficult embarrassing. Remember, Pusser steps 4 & 5 of the seven, universal steps of project management are:

1. Initial enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. Search for the guilty
5. Punishment of the innocent
6. Honours and awards for senior non-participants
7. Destruction of all useful documentation

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Would it not be better to punish the idiots who abuse it (that "accountability" thing), rather than introduce even more rules that make everybody else's life even more difficult?

Funny enough, by the end of our Military Law course when I did my B.O.C., the class had concluded that the Code of Service Discipline should be simplified down to a single charge: STUPIDITY!, with the charge reading "In that, on such and such a date, he/she was stupid enough to [state the particulars]", and the punishment scale going from a verbal caution to death by firing squad.

 

[Pusser]

Probably ... but our political, bureaucratic and military leadership is much more accustomed to reflexive, "close the barn door after the horse is gone" sort of management, plus the abuses, which I repeat are real and widespread, (we, most of us, anyway, seem unable to use the inch we are given, we want the whole mile and we try to take it) sometimes involve pretty senior people - punishing them is difficult embarrassing. Remember, Pusser steps 4 & 5 of the seven, universal steps of project management are:

1. Initial enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. Search for the guilty
5. Punishment of the innocent
6. Honours and awards for senior non-participants
7. Destruction of all useful documentation

I see a motivational poster in that! 

Personally, I think a public hanging of a high-ranking mandarin who's done something stupid would do wonders for morale and motivation.  Remember Admiral Byng*, who was shot on the Quarterdeck of his own Flagship (described by Voltaire: "Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres").  Frankly, I think it's more embarrassing when we do nothing or even worse, allow them to retire with a huge severance package.  But maybe that's just me...

*In all fairness, it is widely believed that the Admiralty was more to blame for the incident for which Byng was executed and that he was hung out to dry in a political squabble.  So in this case, it was the wrong thing to do, but the option should still be there!

 

[Edward Campbell]

I see a motivational poster in that!  Personally, I think a public hanging of a high-ranking mandarin who's done something stupid would do wonders for morale and motivation.  Frankly, I think it's more embarrassing when we do nothing or even worse, allow them to retire with a huge severance package.  But maybe that's just me...

About 25 years ago that "poster" hung in just about every office in the ADM(Mat) and DCDS/Requirements shops ... that and

Regarding punishing seniors ... I recall, about 20 years ago, a very senior officer ordering a flagrant abuse of public funds for an essentially social activity; there was all hell to pay, as there should have been, and the ax fell - squarely on the necks of a couple of LCdrs/Majs because everyone from the guilty very senior personage down to Cdr/LCol was able to duck.

 

[Pusser]

About 25 years ago that "poster" hung in just about every office in the ADM(Mat) and DCDS/Requirements shops ... that and

Regarding punishing seniors ... I recall, about 20 years ago, a very senior officer ordering a flagrant abuse of public funds for an essentially social activity; there was all hell to pay, as there should have been, and the ax fell - squarely on the necks of a couple of LCdrs/Majs because everyone from the guilty very senior personage down to Cdr/LCol was able to duck.

About 30 years ago there was the case of the PACIFIC PETREL, where a well-meaning, long-in-the-tooth major on his retirement posting as an Area Cadet Officer built a ship (actually a good sized sail training vessel for sea cadets, but still a capital project) using O&M funds (major no-no) and ended up breaking all kinds of contracting rules in the process (e.g contract-splitting to avoid limits, etc).  He received no personal benefit from this and it was an amazing piece of work.  Sadly, it all came to a head and he was court-martialed, punted (with loss of pension) and the ship was broken up and disposed of.  What a way to end what had been to that point, a fairly distinguised career. 

At his court martial, one of the things that came up was all the "approvals" he had received from senior command authorities.  Unfortunately, these "approvals" had come in the form of, "wow, what an amazing thing you're doing," from senior officers touring the facility.  The major assumed that because the Commander of Maritime Command had told him he was doing a great job, that everything was OK.  At the trial, the Commander MARCOM stated that he had assumed that the major was following all the appropriate rules and that he had no idea that the project had not been properly approved.  In all fairness, capital construction of this nature was not a MARCOM responsibility.

I have applied this lesson in other scenarios where people have told me, "you need to do this now (i.e. skip a number of steps) because the Admiral has said he wants it done immediately!"  To which I usually reply, "now at what point did the Admiral direct that all regulations and the law of the land be ignored in pursuit of this little whim?"  Generals and Flag Officers often direct that  things be done and even done in quick order, but I'm pretty sure that this always includes the (even if unspoken) caveat, "within the appropriate regulations and laws."