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



## Edward Campbell (26 Feb 2012)

Oh, the horror; the shame of it all! See this recent scandal! Free wine! Probably pretty good wine, too ... reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-personally-approved-22000-hospitality-tab-for-visiting-european-bureaucrats/article2350220/


> Harper personally approved $22,000 hospitality tab for visiting European bureaucrats
> 
> DEAN BEEBY
> 
> ...




_"Harper personally approved $22,000 hospitality tab for visiting European bureaucrats"_ and then, I'll betcha, he went out and mugged handicapped aboriginal children and indigent seniors to get the money!

Imagine: hospitality for senior officials who are negotiating solutions to global economic issues ... shocking. And there were several events, _"all of them featuring free wine."_ Damnit, when these visiting dignitaries to to Rideau Hall there ought to be cash bar ...


----------



## FSTO (26 Feb 2012)

With this robocall issue the media smells blood in the water and they seem to be hell bent to make the current governments life as miserable as possible. Everything reported on this government is OVERTHETOP AND SCANDALOUS! 
22,000 in hospitality? What did George Strombo's little party at TIFF (also paid for by taxpayers) cost?
MND gets a helicopter ride - THE HORROR
CDS flies the corporate jet - WHOTHEHELLDOESHETHINKHEIS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Armoured vehicles sold to Saudi Arabia - HARPER EXPORTS OPPRESSIVENESS TO GULF STATES!

And it goes on and on. Although the conservatives constant campaign has made me uneasy at times, the rhetoric from  the opposition and media has poisoned the waters to a point that I cannot believe that there is any trust or cooperation anywhere in Ottawa today.

It is in that string of emails between the RCAF officers (Ottawa and Goose Bay) that is the most telling. When the Ottawa officer says (paraphrasing) "Giving you a taste of life in Ottawa" it made my skin crawl. After reading that, I hope to god that if I am posted to the NCR that I will not have to interact with any political operative of any stripe while I am there.


----------



## Pusser (27 Feb 2012)

What many folks seem to fail to realize is that playing the proper host for certain events is expected to the point of being an absolute requirement.  It's part of the cost of doing the government's business.  Failure to do it properly will be seen as an insult and eventually mean the Canada will simply be sidelined and ignored in certain circles.

Back when I was organizing receptions on board ships in foreign ports, we frequently went over our TB approved budget, so we simply covered the balance out of the Wardroom Fund.  It was a matter of personal and professional pride that we properly hosted our guests, so we paid our of own pockets to do so.


----------



## FSTO (27 Feb 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> What many folks seem to fail to realize is that playing the proper host for certain events is expected to the point of being an absolute requirement.  It's part of the cost of doing the government's business.  Failure to do it properly will be seen as an insult and eventually mean the Canada will simply be sidelined and ignored in certain circles.
> 
> Back when I was organizing receptions on board ships in foreign ports, we frequently went over our TB approved budget, so we simply covered the balance out of the Wardroom Fund.  It was a matter of personal and professional pride that we properly hosted our guests, so we paid our of own pockets to do so.



I remember going to a luncheon on a Japanese ship. We were all given a gift of cuff-links and tie clip embossed with the ships mascot (a stylized samurai). The gifts likely cost 15 to 20 dollars apiece. all we had were some plastic Canadian Flag pins. We felt like absolute fools. When we went back to our ship our SYO said that we were very limited in giving gifts or mementos to visitors.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Feb 2012)

So it's all a matter of keeping up with the joneses?  Not having an HMCS Bushwacker tie-clip to give away impacts the operational effectiveness of the RCN how, exactly?


----------



## FSTO (27 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So it's all a matter of keeping up with the joneses?  Not having an HMCS Bushwacker tie-clip to give away impacts the operational effectiveness of the RCN how, exactly?



In many cultures the gifts passed between visitors and hosts very much reflect the respect one gives towards the other. I felt that we disrespected our hosts, and even though this event occured 10 years ago, I still hold those feelings today.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Feb 2012)

FSTO said:
			
		

> In many cultures the gifts passed between visitors and hosts very much reflect the respect one gives towards the other. I felt that we disrespected our hosts, and even though this event occured 10 years ago, I still hold those feelings today.



:goodpost:

If one accepts DAP's premise then it is acceptable for FSTO's crew to turn out for a port visit in workdress, grease-stained hands, a rusty hull and cargo stowed on the flight deck.    For appearances don't matter.  No.1s and shiny boots are a waste of money.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Feb 2012)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I felt that we disrespected our hosts,



You clearly do not understand the Japanese then. I have had many dealings with them over the years and what is important to them is the act, not the gift itself.

The Lengths the Japanese go to when hosting is impossible for anyone to match.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Feb 2012)

If the RCN has so few problems that tie tacks and squeeze balls for giveaways are at the top of the list...


I guess we can cancel FELEX and SCSC, and bring out a new project instead: the Naval Integrated Community Excitement Solution Winning Admiration Goodies.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Feb 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You clearly do not understand the Japanese then. I have had many dealings with them over the years and what is important to them is the act, not the gift itself.
> 
> The Lengths the Japanese go to when hosting is impossible for anyone to match.




Having had some experience with major international _shindigs_ in Japan and in meetings elsewhere with the Japanese I agree with CDN Aviator, *BUT* we, the Canadian government agencies, are too _chintzy_ on the hospitality front - first some discretionary spending authority needs to be pushed down farther than is now the case, or, at least, as was the case 15 years ago; second the _limits_ need to be changed to keep up with the times.

I recognize that "hospitality" is politically sensitive and too easy to abuse and that pushing the authority down - to reduce a costly administrative tail - is bound to _encourage_ even more abuse but, in my experience, ships, units, squadrons and detachments were NOT the problem/abusers - it was mid-level HQs who had very little need for any hospitality.

Anecdote: I was hosting a US unit and I had some of my own hospitality funds and Comd FMC, JJ Paradis himself, approved some more; everything was going fine until the SSF HQ (Andy Christs _Prop_) and some parts of FMC HQ decided that they wanted to join the "party." I was able to stop the nonsense by quoting a regulation about host:guest ratios as justification for declining to allow some FMC and SSF HQ folks to participate. (In fairness BGen Christie knew nothing about it and was furious when he learned, from Kip Kirby, about the antics of his staff with a non-SSF unit.)


----------



## Jed (27 Feb 2012)

DAP, It is always easy to defend a position of saving a nickel to eventually spend a dollar when it comes to matters of offical protocol. I personally prefer people from other countries not to remember we Canadians as " those cheap SOB's."


----------



## dapaterson (27 Feb 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> DAP, It is always easy to defend a position of saving a nickel to eventually spend a dollar when it comes to matters of offical protocol. I personally prefer people from other countries not to remember we Canadians as " those cheap SOB's."



We have to draw lines somewhere.  And we've shown (repeatedly!) in the past that those in Federal employ do not always (or even often) have much common sense.  (20k stress balls while DND is in a time of fiscal restrain comes to mind)  So rules are imposed that become a barrier to getting work done.

The military, however, has Non-public funds that can be used for representational expenses.  I do not know when or why we moved away from that, and instead expect the public to foot the bill for the Royal Buckshot Fusiliers dinner plates and the #666 Sqn memorial Ginsu Knives; but it's a forgotten option.


----------



## FSTO (27 Feb 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You clearly do not understand the Japanese then. I have had many dealings with them over the years and what is important to them is the act, not the gift itself.
> 
> The Lengths the Japanese go to when hosting is impossible for anyone to match.



Be that as it may, I still feel that we disrespected them. Plastic Canada pins did not pass the test.


----------



## Jed (27 Feb 2012)

Hey, man. You just dissed my old unit The Royal Buckshot Fusiliers and I always liked that memorial ginsu knife!  ;D


----------



## aesop081 (27 Feb 2012)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Plastic Canada pins did not pass the test.



It didn't pass *YOUR* test.

I gave a JMSDF guy one of those pins last time. He still emails me saying what a great time he had.

I guess you have your priorities.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (27 Feb 2012)

Just give them a box of:






Mr. Sparkle is a magnet for foodstuffs...he will banish dirt to the land of wind and ghosts"


 ;D


----------



## FSTO (27 Feb 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It didn't pass *YOUR* test.
> 
> I gave a JMSDF guy one of those pins last time. He still emails me saying what a great time he had.
> 
> I guess you have your priorities.



Wow. You seem to be turning into the Pat Martin of Army.ca. Chill man, it was MY OPINION.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Feb 2012)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Wow. You seem to be turning into the Pat Martin of Army.ca. Chill man, it was MY OPINION.



Stop killing kittens please.


----------



## Pusser (28 Feb 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It didn't pass *YOUR* test.
> 
> I gave a JMSDF guy one of those pins last time. He still emails me saying what a great time he had.
> 
> I guess you have your priorities.



I have to agree with FSTO on this one.  It IS embarrassing, which is why, in my experience, we often dipped into our own pockets to try and at least attempt to do it right.  You are correct that the Japanese set a standard that is impossible to match, but do we have to go to the opposite extreme and go as cheap as possible without actually charging admission to a function that we are hosting?  Surely there is a happy medium somewhere?  If we can give the captain of one of HMC Ships the authority to spend over a million dollars annually and hold the lives of hundreds of sailors in his hands, surely we can trust him to spend a few more dollars on some decent gifts.  Frankly, the ridiculous limits which are imposed now tend to ENCOURAGE creative accounting, which in itself is abuse.


----------



## Jed (28 Feb 2012)

:goodpost:
Exactly what I tried to say.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Feb 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I have to agree with FSTO on this one.  It IS embarrassing, which is why, in my experience, we often dipped into our own pockets to try and at least attempt to do it right.  You are correct that the Japanese set a standard that is impossible to match, but do we have to go to the opposite extreme and go as cheap as possible without actually charging admission to a function that we are hosting?  Surely there is a happy medium somewhere?  If we can give the captain of one of HMC Ships the authority to spend over a million dollars annually and hold the lives of hundreds of sailors in his hands, surely we can trust him to spend a few more dollars on some decent gifts.  Frankly, the ridiculous limits which are imposed now tend to ENCOURAGE creative accounting, which in itself is abuse.



The Treasury Board is a committee of government ministers who have put into place the policies that direct what the Federal Government, its employees, agents, and its military and police members may do with public funds.  This includes restrictions on what may be termed representational expenses.  Gifts can only be authorized by a Level 2 (bureaucratic speak - translated to the RCN, that's the Commanders or MARPAC, MARLANT, and NavRes), who in turn are limited to $55; a Level 1 (Commander fo a command) can authorize the princely sum of $75.  Those authorities may not be delegated further.


The Government of Canada has issued direction on this, like it or not.


----------



## Strike (28 Feb 2012)

dapaterson, you can argue TSB directives all you want.  The fact of the matter is, the allowances (or lack thereof) contradict the basic manners that many of us were taught by our parents.  If someone hosts you, you give them a gift to thank them.  If someone is visiting, you treat them with respect and offer them food and drink.  Heck, even the poorest people in the poorest villages in the world know and follow these basic practices, even when they have barely enough food to feed themselves!

It's frustrating when a government directive goes against the basics of common curtesy when being hosted or hosting.  One should not have to go all the way to some guy in Ottawa to ask permission for money to serve more than coffee and sweets when the mucky-mucks of foreign militaries come visiting.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Feb 2012)

In late January it was announced that someone in DND wanted 20 000 orange stress balls; the MND (himself!) ordered that stopped.

That folks in DND/CF all nodded and said "Yes, we're facing times of economic restraint.  20 000 stress balls are a valid and legitimate operational requirement." tells me that leaders and managers throughout the organization have no conception of managing money nor of what is appropriate or not.

Hence why we have admittedly draconian restrictions - because without them, we'd piss away even more money on frivolities.  We cannot rely on common sense or good judgement - we have repeated examples of how rare those actually are.


In theory, when high mucky-mucks come visiting from foreign countries it's co-ordinated by a group in NDHQ who have authority to extend hospitality and offer gifts.  Unit COs can be delegated authority to offer hospitality (but not gifts).


This isn't rocket science - plan ahead and get approval.  That many in DND/CF prefer a reactive stance to a proactive stance is part of the problem.


----------



## Pusser (28 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The Treasury Board is a committee of government ministers who have put into place the policies that direct what the Federal Government, its employees, agents, and its military and police members may do with public funds.  This includes restrictions on what may be termed representational expenses.  Gifts can only be authorized by a Level 2 (bureaucratic speak - translated to the RCN, that's the Commanders or MARPAC, MARLANT, and NavRes), who in turn are limited to $55; a Level 1 (Commander fo a command) can authorize the princely sum of $75.  Those authorities may not be delegated further.
> 
> 
> The Government of Canada has issued direction on this, like it or not.



I fully understand all of this and I even understand why the rules are in place and what caused them to be put there.  However, I also think that Treasury Board has simply gotten it wrong.  The restrictions are too  - restrictive and bureaucratic.  They've obviously been developed by folks who've never left their ivory tower in Ottawa and assume that the world is predictable and things can be planned well in advance.  The practical application of these rules requires weeks, if not months of planning to gain permission and procure appropriate gifts.  More often than not, this time simply isn't there.  Furthermore, when a unit is deployed, the process becomes even more complicated, if not impossible, because the people whose signatures are required are scattered far and wide.

Here's a true to life scenario:  A ship makes an unexpected visit to a foreign port (happens frequently), protocol then dictates that the Captain "call" on the local port authority, the local official presents Captain with beautiful hand-carved "Welcome to Xanadu" plaque (happens frequently) and the Captain responds with a ball cap - paid for by the Ship's Company out of their pockets (i.e. NPF).  This is appropriate?  Why should Ordinary Seaman Bloggins pay for a gift to someone he's never met, will never meet and had no say in whether the ship went to that port in the first place?  If the ship is going to do the government's business then the government should cover the cost, which includes any gifts required by protocol.  Far too often, members of the CF shell out of their own pockets to save the country from embarrassment because the government won't.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be rules, but those rules need to be practical and reasonable under the circumstances.  People in charge also need to be held accountable for the decisions they make.  Instead of making more rules when people screw up or ignore them (which generally only tend to make life more difficult for the folks who did NOT break them), we should try enforcing those rules we have.


----------



## Jed (28 Feb 2012)

Precisely, Pusser. But that is not the Bean Counter way. We all must suffer for the one percenter boobs who will inevitably screw up. Spend a dollar to save a nickle, I say.


----------



## Pusser (28 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In late January it was announced that someone in DND wanted 20 000 orange stress balls; the MND (himself!) ordered that stopped.
> 
> That folks in DND/CF all nodded and said "Yes, we're facing times of economic restraint.  20 000 stress balls are a valid and legitimate operational requirement." tells me that leaders and managers throughout the organization have no conception of managing money nor of what is appropriate or not.
> 
> ...



I'm not defending stupid decisions.  However, instead of preventing or hindering other folks from doing their jobs properly, deal with the idiots who do stupid things.  

Sometimes, the best laid plans still come up short and flexibility is required to ensure the correct outcome.


----------



## CountDC (28 Feb 2012)

although I agree that the purse strings are too tight in these cases it has to be realized this is because the people of Canada demanded it and still do.  Look at the reactions everytime there is a report of some government department or agent spending x dollars.  Mentioning $22k will have joe citizen crying foul while those of us that have worked or are now working fin shrug over such a small drop in the bucket.  Garunteed this will now crop up everytime they cut a budget.  Someone will comment that they need the funds for their parties that the helicopters take them to.

You know the press is trying to cause waves when they talk dollars.  Much more attention getting than talking percentage of the national budget.    Imagine if the story was that they had spent .0000001 percent of the national budget on this. Yes that is a  random number - figure it out for yourself if you really want to know.  Doesn't really have the same affect though does it.  Same as the DND budget - at one time it was often shown as a percentage, which was small overall, but now they always talk the dollars.


----------



## Pusser (28 Feb 2012)

It's worth noting that I am one of those "bean counters" and I can tell you that these rules make my life even more difficult because I'm the one who has to go to the CO to tell him, "we can't do this," to which he responds:

a) Why not? (usually accompanied by an epithet or two)

b) Figure it out and find a way to do this  :rage:.  

They never like the answer to a) and I haven't found a good answer to b) yet, short of manufacturing gifts myself in order to stay within the cost restrictions (and yes, I've done this).


----------



## Strike (28 Feb 2012)

DP -- You keep bringing up the stress balls.  Have you ever thought to ask who originally put in the purchase order for those and what the intention was for them?

I only bring this up because, having visited the mental health section of the MIR here I've noticed that the therapists usually have a couple on their desks, along with things like elastics and other items for the twitchy.  I asked one of them how many they go through and they said usually a couple a day per therapist.

So, for you and many people, these items seem useless and frivolous.  For others they are used to help people cope with the stresses of their every day lives.

Sorry, but having you repeatedly bringing up this one item as if it was the most useless thing in the world was really grinding on me.  I have a couple of them myself, given to me from MH, and I have to admit that the act of squeezing the crap out of something for a few minutes has helped to calm me down on more than a few occasions.

Can you please pick something else that you think is frivolous to pick on?


----------



## Jed (28 Feb 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> DAP, It is always easy to defend a position of saving a nickel to eventually spend a dollar when it comes to matters of official protocol. I personally prefer people from other countries not to remember we Canadians as " those cheap SOB's."



As I implied above, the government wastes a lot of money rooting out the stupid spending practices of the small minority. And, as previously mentioned, it is done to reduce the number of press worthy 'gotcha' incidents.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Feb 2012)

Strike:

If the stress balls had been purchased by Health Services as therapeutic devices, there would have been no reaction.  They were not - they were to be purchased as giveaways for some program or another.

I work in NDHQ.  A few times a month (usually to celebrate "National Toilet Paper Awareness Week" or some other earth shattering event) tables are set up in the main concourse, where various organizations within DND/CF set up to talk about their programs.  They've got stress balls, lanyards, pens, note pads, shopping bags, flashlights, coffee mugs... you name the tchotke, and someone has a stack of them to give away.

I call those days "Bottom 10% days" - since, if we've got full-time military and civilian staff with nothing better to do than push shoddy trinkets, and with enough money to have a steady supply of said trinkets, they clearly should be part of the bottom 10% news reports say DND is culling.


And Pusser:

Short turn-arounds (an unexpected port) can be managed - even an email to the boss saying "Hey, we're stopping in Blogginsville unexpectedly - need to give him a gift" with the OK of the Commander is enough of a paper trail to get things done - fil out the forms after, referring to the email and attaching a hard copy (you did save the email, didn't you?)

And I too have had the challenge of remaining within the limits, and telling a CO "Sir, let's try another idea..."


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Feb 2012)

We can offer tap water to our clients. Anything beyond that requires a RDG level approval. Anything involving booze requires an even higher level approval.

Most proponents and consultants don’t want to come to our office because we can’t offer hospitality. Hell we even have to buy the dish soap for the little kitchen we have. So far they are providing toilet paper and the very basic paper towels.


----------



## Strike (28 Feb 2012)

DP -- Fair enough.  I'm just annoyed at the extra steps I now have to take to simply restock my 'giveaways' out of a budget that I manage, in a job that is meant to promote and advertise the CF.  It used to be such a simple process but the extra steps are time consuming, annoying and just plain patronizing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Feb 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> As I implied above, the government wastes a lot of money rooting out the stupid spending practices of the small minority. And, as previously mentioned, it is done to reduce the number of press worthy 'gotcha' incidents.




Sadly, the "small minority" is not as small as we would all wish, and their "stupid practices" almost invariably make the news, embarrassing the government  of the day and the senior bureaucrats.

Do you think Wayne Wouters actually enjoys wasting staff time and effort to get the PM to sign off on the hospitality expenses for an OECD meeting? Of course he doesn't, but he accepts it as the price that must be paid to prevent  abuses of public money ~ and in a 35+ years military career and in a decade long second career spent working with industry and government and hosting international meetings, I, personally, saw more abuse that I was able to stomach.

Several issues:

1. Legitimate hospitality for visiting foreign delegations is not impossible, it's not even very hard ~ but there are pretty strict and, in my opinion too low limits. It is (was, anyway) possible to claim "reasonable and actual" hospitality expenses when functions were held in CF messes ~ but thank all the gods for computers and spreadsheets because I had to show _x_ drinks and _y_ canapes for _n_ guests and _n1_ hosts;

2. Gifts, except in rare occasions, should be modest ~ but we ought to have some nice, better than the red plastic maple leaf pins, CF and/or service pins; and

3. Units and formations ought to use NPF to buy a few extra e.g. cloth ship regiment or squadron crests to be used a gifts ~ yes it is the sailor's/soldiers'/air force members' money but it is also their unit and they are being represented when the CO or Cox'n hands out a few "goodies."

In my (reasonably extensive) experience I concluded that the _spirit_ matters more than the monetary value of the token; I have a few quite expensive "tokens," only two are on display: one from a Canadian institute thanking me for a (professional) contribution and the other from a major European company thanking me for helping them solve a problem - the rest were just for "being there" and they are meaningless to me. But I do cherish a large handful of mostly cheap "trinkets" that I got from various, mostly military, organizations and I can usually tell you when, where and why I got most of them.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Feb 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> DP -- Fair enough.  I'm just annoyed at the extra steps I now have to take to simply restock my 'giveaways' out of a budget that I manage, in a job that is meant to promote and advertise the CF.  It used to be such a simple process but the extra steps are time consuming, annoying and just plain patronizing.



I'm not disagreeing at all that it's annoying, time consuming and patronizing.  But it has evolved that way over time, and it will take time and continued good behaviour to get the conditions changed.


(For the record, I have in my life had one meal with alcohol provided by the Crown, when I was support staff to a senior multi-national meeting.  Food was OK (though I've had better) and the wine was an above-average Merlot.)


----------



## Pusser (28 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And Pusser:
> 
> Short turn-arounds (an unexpected port) can be managed - even an email to the boss saying "Hey, we're stopping in Blogginsville unexpectedly - need to give him a gift" with the OK of the Commander is enough of a paper trail to get things done - fil out the forms after, referring to the email and attaching a hard copy (you did save the email, didn't you?)
> 
> And I too have had the challenge of remaining within the limits, and telling a CO "Sir, let's try another idea..."



You would think that it would work that way, especially with email access around the world now.  Sadly it does not.  When I was last faced with this, if the plan was not in place and approved well in advance of leaving home port, we were SOL -period, no appeal or debate.

The problem with saying we need another idea is that it usually immediately put the onus on me to come up with that new idea, with zero direction on what the desired outcome was to be (admittedly, no policy in the world could have overcome the leadership void I was in at the time), but this is an issue for another thread.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In my (reasonably extensive) experience I concluded that the _spirit_ matters more than the monetary value of the token; I have a few quite expensive "tokens," only two are on display: one from a Canadian institute thanking me for a (professional) contribution and the other from a major European company thanking me for helping them solve a problem - the rest were just for "being there" and they are meaningless to me. But I do cherish a large handful of mostly cheap "trinkets" that I got from various, mostly military, organizations and I can usually tell you when, where and why I got most of them.



Precisely - it's the spirit in which it's given and the reason for which it's given that makes it significant.




			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> You would think that it would work that way, especially with email access around the world now.  Sadly it does not.  When I was last faced with this, if the plan was not in place and approved well in advance of leaving home port, we were SOL -period, no appeal or debate.



That's a leadership issue.  I've done plenty of things with an email approval - paper to follow.  We do seem to breed some rather timorous "leaders", unfortunately.

(And re: lack of direction from leaders:  sounds like a discussion at a stand-up table that will inevitably turn into a feat of one-upmanship.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (28 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And Pusser:
> 
> Short turn-arounds (an unexpected port) can be managed - even an email to the boss saying "Hey, we're stopping in Blogginsville unexpectedly - need to give him a gift" with the OK of the Commander is enough of a paper trail to get things done - fil out the forms after, referring to the email and attaching a hard copy (you did save the email, didn't you?)
> 
> And I too have had the challenge of remaining within the limits, and telling a CO "Sir, let's try another idea..."



The problem here is that quite often, there is a requirement to plan ahead. yes, you may be able to get a painting or coffee mug through the canteen but sometimes, you need more. I was on board GATINEAU years ago when a Russion TG came into Halifax. As our CO's last post was as military attache at the embassy in Moscow, we were 'volunteered' to host. As a PO2, we hosted the senior rates. They brought us over this wooden ships wheel from one of their famous sailing vessels (I wonder what ever happenned to it?) and what did we give them? A ships crest painted by a hungover (obviously) bos'n, ham and cheese sandwiches and about 80 gallons of Kieths beer. 

I felt a little inadequate.

Oh, and those days at 101? I too wonder what the hell we have come to when I witness those - It's embarrassing!


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I work in NDHQ.  A few times a month (usually to celebrate "National Toilet Paper Awareness Week" or some other earth shattering event) tables are set up in the main concourse, where various organizations within DND/CF set up to talk about their programs.  They've got stress balls, lanyards, pens, note pads, shopping bags, flashlights, coffee mugs... you name the tchotke, and someone has a stack of them to give away.



I hear ya.  Go on just about any course run by PSP/CFPSA and get a pen, a pin, a key chain, and mug or glass, a notepad......the list goes on.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2012)

The Swedish company that I used to work for used to have a marketing department that justified its existence cranking giveaways: everything from plastic pins, to kiddies toys, to cameras and models of the equipment I sold. All good stuff.  All budgeted. And for a totally different purpose (or maybe not - the CF is selling Canada just as much as I was selling centrifuges).

But the point of my intervention is that out of all of that catalogue of goodies there was one eternally well received gift.  It wasn't the most expensive one.  It was a satin finish stainless steel penknife with two blades and a nail file in a black leather slip case.  It measured about 2 and half inches long, 3/4 of an inch wide and was about 3/8" thick.  One of my english relatives handed them out to his clients in the 1930s.  I was still handing them out in the 1990s.  

The good idea fairy got ahold of somebody in marketing one day and decided it would be more cost effective to just by knives from the Zippo and Gerber catalogs and hand them out.  We ended up spending a fortune on Gerber multi-tools and broke the budget...

Meanwhile, the clients, they thanked us for the Gerbers, stated they were Leathermen fans and wanted to know where their little knife in the black slip case was.

Gifts don't have to be expensive but they should be memorable.   And if you can get something that people want and seek out as unusual...

Marlin spike on a lanyard perhaps?


----------



## dapaterson (28 Feb 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Marlin spike on a lanyard perhaps?



Halifax Class shooter glasses - a different one for each ship.  Collect all twelve and we'll throw in a free Upholder class submarine (slightly used).


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Halifax Class shooter glasses - a different one for each ship.  Collect all twelve and we'll throw in a free Upholder class submarine (slightly used).



Methinks I detect irony...


----------



## dapaterson (28 Feb 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Methinks I detect irony...



Yes, you're right.  If we're trying to be hospitable, we shouldn't give our guest one of those subs...


----------



## MedCorps (28 Feb 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> a) Why not? (usually accompanied by an epithet or two)
> 
> b) Figure it out and find a way to do this  :rage:.
> 
> They never like the answer to a) and I haven't found a good answer to b) yet, short of *manufacturing gifts myself in order to stay within the cost restrictions (*and yes, I've done this).



I have seen this technique used more than once.  The CO/RSM finds a junior NCO (often, although I have seen a Sgt/WO once and a Capt once) who is talented in (select your favorite) wood working / metal working / stained glass / painting / sculpting / fabrics and then employs them as such regardless of their MOS in at a rate as frequently as required for the generation of gifts, etc.  Truly amazing things these well paid Crown artisans can make with minimal amounts of materials.  I have seen sword cases, a myriad of hand turned pens/candle stick makers/bowls, leather book marks, book covers, stained glass lamps, stone carvings, daggers, models, etc made over my years in this manner. I even saw a nice alpaca scarf once made and presented as a "regimental gift" to a lady dignitary who was quite impressed. 

Does not make it right.  Only makes it possible as a work around given the crazy tight rules on cash expenditures.  Good reason to ask, "So do you have any hobbies?" during your section / platoon / company commanders interviews.  

MC


----------



## Pusser (28 Feb 2012)

MedCorps said:
			
		

> I have seen this technique used more than once.  The CO/RSM finds a junior NCO (often, although I have seen a Sgt/WO once and a Capt once) who is talented in (select your favorite) wood working / metal working / stained glass / painting / sculpting / fabrics and then employs them as such regardless of their MOS in at a rate as frequently as required for the generation of gifts, etc.  Truly amazing things these well paid Crown artisans can make with minimal amounts of materials.  I have seen sword cases, a myriad of hand turned pens/candle stick makers/bowls, leather book marks, book covers, stained glass lamps, stone carvings, daggers, models, etc made over my years in this manner. I even saw a nice alpaca scarf once made and presented as a "regimental gift" to a lady dignitary who was quite impressed.
> 
> Does not make it right.  Only makes it possible as a work around given the crazy tight rules on cash expenditures.  Good reason to ask, "So do you have any hobbies?" during your section / platoon / company commanders interviews.
> 
> MC



Most of the time, I'm happy to do this, especially for friends and unit members, but when I'm working 18 hour days trying to get a ship ready to deploy, I can think of better uses for my time than making up for the "system's" shortfalls.


----------



## ekpiper (29 Feb 2012)

I performed at the US Ambassador's Ottawa residence in '09, and they had a great party for many people.  Great entertainment, lots of guests, and well staffed.  Even the band (Canadian) had access to hot dogs, appetizers and Sam Adams, whereas the normal fare for us is maybe a sandwich tray with 1/2 a sandwich per member and bottled water.

On the other hand, representing Canada in Washington about a month before, we had to buy our own dinner at our embassy, even though we were on a travel claim...Ripoff, too.

The point has been made by others already, but it seems to me that while it is necessary to monitor costs to avoid frivolity, national pride is on the line, and whereas many in the public may not see the need for waving the flag, the respect of the international community is needed, and these costs are hardly extravagant.  The OECD conference gave a $50 gift to each delegate, and the article barely notes that the hospitality total was trimmed by $6,000, or ~27%.  The TB maximum for a reception is $46/person, or less than many mess dinners.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Feb 2012)

Good discussion.

When we consider this, though......


			
				ekpiper said:
			
		

> The point has been made by others already, but it seems to me that while it is necessary to monitor costs to avoid frivolity, national pride is on the line, and whereas many in the public may not see the need for waving the flag, the respect of the international community is needed ....



.... how does Canada look to clients/taxpayers when this happens?


			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> We can offer tap water to our clients. Anything beyond that requires a RDG level approval. Anything involving booze requires an even higher level approval.



Does how Canada look to the world matter _more_ than how we look to the folks we serve?*

Caveat:  I realize this is a devil's advocate question because, as ERC said earlier, the rules are there, in part, because of the not-as-few-as-we'd-like-to-think who skirt/stretch rules otherwise.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Feb 2012)

Despite what some may believe, the CF's primary role is not to offer hospitality to international guests.  There's a whole federal department that does that, and they have more generous allowances to do so.  Having been (once) to an informal dinner expensed to the Government of Canada by DFAIT staff, I'll say that I saw nothing frivolous, and a key decision was the outcome of the meeting - well worth the cost of dinner for 9.

While the CF may have need to perform some low-level interactions, the high level stuff (and note that a room full of generals does not constitute high-level relations, despite their own beliefs) is done elsewhere.


Re: receptions:  A reception isn't a dinner.  TB policy permits 2x the rated amount of the meal, so a dinner could be up to $80.60 per person; hardly forcing senior and important folks to eat at McDonalds.  Sorry, but the band don't qualify as senior or important.


----------



## Pusser (29 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> *Despite what some may believe, the CF's primary role is not to offer hospitality to international guests. *    There's a whole federal department that does that, and they have more generous allowances to do so.  Having been (once) to an informal dinner expensed to the Government of Canada by DFAIT staff, I'll say that I saw nothing frivolous, and a key decision was the outcome of the meeting - well worth the cost of dinner for 9.
> 
> While the CF may have need to perform some low-level interactions, the high level stuff (and note that a room full of generals does not constitute high-level relations, despite their own beliefs) is done elsewhere.
> 
> ...



That's not entirely true at all.  We often find ourselves as the only representatives of Canada in some situations, particularly in operational theatres.  In ships in particular, we often end up hosting foreign dignitaries *at DFAIT's request/direction* (never truly sure about which it is - that's a Ministerial level bunfight).  In all fairness to DFAIT, whenever they ask to hold a reception onboard, they often chip in a few bucks.  Having said that, this still does not negate some of the unique protocol requirements of port visits (i.e. official calls on port authorities) that have nothing to do with DFAIT.

I remember one reception in particular in Barbados that was attended by most of the local ambassadors and the Canadian Deputy Minister of National Defence (I wonder if Mr Fowler still has my card  ).  The High Commisioner was present (and amazed that I found fresh strawberries), but the ship's Captain was most definitely the host.


----------



## Strike (29 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Sorry, but the band don't qualify as senior or important.



No, but this goes back to good manners by offering those who are attending events, in whatever capacity, the same food you are eating.

I recall helping to organize the mess dinner for my wings grad where, not only did we pay for the guest of honour, but his driver as well.  Even though the young man did not have a seat at the table, we made sure he was well taken care of behind the scenes, including throwing some Tim's gift certificates his way to help with the drive back the next morning.  There was no debate.  We all chipped in a few extra bucks to pay for his meal because it was the PROPER thing to do.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Feb 2012)

It is entirely true.  Note the phrase "the CF's primary role".  While we may be tasked to provide some support to such events, it is not the primary role of the CF.  If it was, we'd replace the helo decks with dance floors, replace the missile racks with bars, convert Leo 2s into mobile light shows with a disco ball suspended above the turret (the smoke dischargers we'd keep), and for the Air Force... no change  >


Supporting another government department?  Certainly.  Even providing a ship to host a function.  But again, the CF's primary role is not international liaison and relationship building.


----------



## Jed (29 Feb 2012)

Jeez, DAP. That PER must be right justified by now!  ;D


----------



## dapaterson (29 Feb 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> No, but this goes back to good manners by offering those who are attending events, in whatever capacity, the same food you are eating.
> 
> I recall helping to organize the mess dinner for my wings grad where, not only did we pay for the guest of honour, but his driver as well.  Even though the young man did not have a seat at the table, we made sure he was well taken care of behind the scenes, including throwing some Tim's gift certificates his way to help with the drive back the next morning.  There was no debate.  We all chipped in a few extra bucks to pay for his meal because it was the PROPER thing to do.



And the mess staff who served you?  Did you give them the same meal and some Timmies cards?  Since they did far more for you than the GoH's driver did.

Support staff are there to support - including the band.  Give them a meal?  yes.  Give them the same meal as the rest of the diners?  No.  There's no need to do so, and the cost may well be prohibitive.  Would your class have sprung for 35 additional plates at the mess dinner for the band?  $40 per head, when take-out chicken would be $10 a head instead?


Egalitarian impluses are fine.  But all animals are not equal.  Some are more equal than other.  So when two ambassadors meet, and bring along staff, the ambassadors may well eat filet mignon while the staff are in another room eating ravioli.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Feb 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> Jeez, DAP. That PER must be right justified by now!  ;D



I'm not even in that area of work now.  And I've suffered through getting requests approved.  But the system is what the system is - so learn it, understand it, and work with it.


----------



## Jed (29 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But the system is what the system is - so learn it, understand it, and work with it.



A lesson I eventually learned after much bashing my head against the brick wall.  8)


----------



## Pusser (29 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It is entirely true.  Note the phrase "the CF's primary role".  While we may be tasked to provide some support to such events, it is not the primary role of the CF.  If it was, we'd replace the helo decks with dance floors, replace the missile racks with bars, convert Leo 2s into mobile light shows with a disco ball suspended above the turret (the smoke dischargers we'd keep), and for the Air Force... no change  >
> 
> 
> Supporting another government department?  Certainly.  Even providing a ship to host a function.  But again, the CF's primary role is not international liaison and relationship building.



Whether it's our "official" primary role is irrelevant (although, one could argue that international relations falls under assertion of sovereignty, which is a primary role - admittedly a bit of stretch, but still an argument to be made).  The fact is that we do it and we are ordered to do it; therefore, we must do it properly.


----------



## Pusser (29 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But the system is what the system is - so learn it, understand it, and work with it.


I do know it, understand it and work within it, but my point is that it is inadequate and unnecessarily restrictive.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Feb 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I do know it, understand it and work within it, but my point is that it is inadequate and unnecessarily restrictive.




But, and despite my distaste for the current system, DAP is correct; and the system would not be so "inadequate and unnecessarily restrictive" if  whole bunch of (relatively senior) civil servants and CF members didn't consistently abuse it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Supporting another government department?  Certainly.  Even providing a ship to host a function.  But again, the CF's primary role is not international liaison and relationship building.



Actually, whether primary, secondary or whatever ranking, it is and it always has been a duty of the Navies to carry out diplomatic duties and functions abroad. 

I realize this is not so for the Armies and Air Forces, but onboard ships, it is par for the course. We do not carry out foreign port visits on a whim and just to provide a fun port of call break for the crew (though it often turns out that way in the end - thankfully).

Similarly, in our waters and to some extent in international ones, ship captains have some law enforcement powers and customs and excise duties that come with the job - not so for C.O.'s of Air or Land units. Navies just are a different breed WRT these types of situations. 

Personally (and I think Pusser might appreciate this suggestion), I would like to see an annual global allocation for these duties that would be for use at a captain's discretion - with supporting documents of course. While I know that there are stupid people out there, I suspect that extremely few captains would be so. That's because the way they use this discretionary spending power would likely be scrutinized by their superiors ( I know I would) at P.E.R. time: After all, if you show bad judgement in the exercise of your discretion for the use of hospitality funds, then why on earth should you be entrusted with 225-275 lives, the safety of a 600-800 M$ ship and the management of a few million dollars budget?


----------



## Pusser (1 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, and despite my distaste for the current system, DAP is correct; and the system would not be so "inadequate and unnecessarily restrictive" if  whole bunch of (relatively senior) civil servants and CF members didn't consistently abuse it.



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?


----------



## ekpiper (1 Mar 2012)

: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 (1 Mar 2012)

ekpiper said:
			
		

> 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 (1 Mar 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> 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 (1 Mar 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> 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 (1 Mar 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> 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 (1 Mar 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> 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 (1 Mar 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> 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 (1 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 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
> ...



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 (1 Mar 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> 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 (1 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

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



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."


----------

