# Land Forces Reserve Restructure



## Rick Goebel (6 Oct 2000)

Many new items were posted to http://www.army.dnd.ca/LFRR/LFRRSitreps/main_e.htm today after the Minister‘s press conference.

Most of the items in Phase I of the restructure process are things that reservists have been asking for over a period of several years.  Since the CLS wants to build trust in his HQ before proceding to Phase II, I think there is probably even a good chance of most of the changes really happening.

Rick


----------



## Bill Smy (15 Oct 2002)

Mike Bobbitt, I don‘t know what you do in civilian life, but you really should be under contract with 
DND to advise on how to organize and run a web site.

Has anyone looked at the Land Forces Reserve Restructure web site. If the site is reflective of the work being done by LFRR PMO, then I would suggest that no one hold their breath expecting results in any improvements to the Reserve Army.

The Home Page was updated with a telephone number last April. The media page is two years out of date. The Sitreps are out of date. The documents page is out of date.

The General Forum is a gossip column. There‘s a lot of interaction by outsiders, but no real answers by PMO LFRR. Some examples. The SO Coms posted a CANLANDGEN on 17 Jul 02 on Army Reserve Employment Opportunities. When readers began asking specific questions, the reply was "I don‘t know...I‘m just relaying the information." Still no answers on 26 Aug 02.

The SO Coms posted an article by Jack Aubrey of Southam News which discussed Reserve recruiting and the Groupaction ad agency. The post was titled "Look Who Designed Our Recruiting Campaign" and it produced a lot of comment and questions, but no definite answers by the DND staff.

I emailed PMO LFRR and still have received no answer to the complaints I made of the site and the timeliness of the information.

As far as I am concerned, the site is a waste of money. It is a sop to the Army Reserve, but does not give any up-to-date info on the work of the LFRR PMO. And the General Forum site could better be done by Mike Bobbitt.

Take a look. Be critical (and remember "critical" need not only be negative). Tell them what you think.

I wish I could figure out how to send this email to the PMO.

  :fifty:


----------



## Bill Smy (15 Oct 2002)

I should have included the site address:

www.army.dnd.ca/LFRR/LFRRSitreps/main_e.htm

  :fifty:


----------



## Gorgo (15 Oct 2002)

I visited this site sometime ago.  I‘m forced to agree with the colonel here.  If this is the way DND is approaching the task of helping the Reserves...!


----------



## toms3 (15 Oct 2002)

i use to go on the LFRR discussion board regularly.....at first there was some interesting duscussion and when I see the Military implimenting something I wonder if it did not originate at the LFRR site.  However, over the last few months it has become a debate practice forum.  No direction, just topics with 3 or 4 individuals debating the topic with essay style responces that do not provide a solution only a counter point to the last guys post.  I removed it from my Favorites months ago and have not been back since.   That is sad to say for an idea with so much potential.
  :sniper:


----------



## Sharpey (15 Oct 2002)

I am an active "lurker" and very seldem a "poster" on the LFRR site. It seems that answeres and ideas come quicker from this site. It seems that current and potential soldier‘s gripes come more out in the open in this forum.


----------



## NMPeters (15 Oct 2002)

It is unfortunate that Mr. Smy neglected to research his facts thoroughly before posting his message. As the person who was so discourteously assailed in his post, I will endeavour to provide the facts in order for the readers here to develop a fair and balanced opinion.

“If the site is reflective of the work being done by LFRR PMO, then I would suggest that no one hold their breath expecting results in any improvements to the Reserve Army.” I will comment on this statement at the end of my post.

‘The Home Page was updated with a telephone number last April…” Yes it was. And the reason that it hasn’t been updated since is because the Army has been without a Webmaster since April. An Army Webmaster has recently been hired and his priority right now is the redesign of the Army site. This redesign includes the Army Reserve and LFRR pages. “The media page is two years out of date.” Yes it is. Because, quite frankly, there has been nothing in the past year and a half (the time that I’ve been employed at LFRR) that has been worthwhile posting there.  “The Sitreps are out of date.” No they are not. The Sitreps are a historical collection of what has happened to LFRR since the government announcement on LFRR. How can history be out of date?  “The documents page is out of date.” In what way? There are some key documents listed on that page. 

“The SO Coms posted a CANLANDGEN on 17 Jul 02 on Army Reserve Employment Opportunities. When readers began asking specific questions, the reply was "I don‘t know...I‘m just relaying the information." Still no answers on 26 Aug” Actually, to put the ENTIRE quote into perspective, I was asked if there was any plan to put the Reserve Employment Opportunities on the Internet. My ENTIRE reply was “I don‘t know and I don‘t even know if there are plans to do so. I‘m just relaying the information here. This is not an LFRR initiative. In fact, we didn‘t even know about it until we fell on the CANLANDGEN yesterday.” All these requests for “Subject Matter Experts” and answers from other Directorates were coming during the summer leave and posting season. I, too, took some summer leave. I decided “on 26 Aug 02” to give people a few weeks after the summer to get back into their routine and/or settle into their new jobs before requesting their “voluntary” participation on the LFRR open forum. It was at this time, however, that I had to have surgery and was off for a while on sick leave. I am, after all, only human.

“The SO Coms posted an article by Jack Aubrey of Southam News which discussed Reserve recruiting and the Groupaction ad agency. The post was titled "Look Who Designed Our Recruiting Campaign" and it produced a lot of comment and questions, but no definite answers by the DND staff.” To be absolutely correct, this article discussed CF recruiting, not Reserve recruiting, and the work done by Groupaction. If you go back to the post, sir, you will see that Captain Grant, who is the head of operations for the advertising group in DND, replied with two lengthy posts about recruiting and he also posted in another discussion thread to which he referred people. So to say that there were no definite answers by the DND staff is not correct and is very misleading.

“I emailed PMO LFRR and still have received no answer to the complaints I made of the site and the timeliness of the information.” I would be quite interested to know who you emailed in this office. I certainly did not receive an email from you and if any of the other staff here had received it, it would have eventually come across my desk. And quite frankly, sir, my email address as well as the 1-800 number are posted in every one of my posts on that board. And you’ve certainly seen my posts to be able to quote from them. Had I been in your shoes, I would have at least attempted to make a phone call on the toll free line before publicly maligning the work done by the LFRR staff.

“As far as I am concerned, the site is a waste of money. It is a sop to the Army Reserve, but does not give any up-to-date info on the work of the LFRR PMO. And the General Forum site could better be done by Mike Bobbitt.” Am I completely satisfied with the LFRR site? Most definitely not. It is something that I inherited and design-wise, it is horrible, and up-to-date? No. Not entirely. But better than it was when I took over, and there will be a 100% improvement, hopefully by mid-November, when the new site gets uploaded. So spending an inordinate amount of time and energy on the site at this moment would, then, yes, be a waste of money. And, you are correct; the Open Forum discussion board could better be done by Mike Bobbitt. In fact, I would have welcomed it. I tried in June to organize the forum into useful topics myself and ended up deleting the entire General Discussion bulletin board. I am not an IT wizard. I admit that and have done so many times on that forum. But again, the redesign of the site will also redesign the forum into something a lot more aesthetically pleasing and easier to use.

“I wish I could figure out how to send this email to the PMO.” There is no need now is there. But I will reiterate, my email address and 1-800 number are no secret on that forum. You could have very easily contacted me or any of the staff here, through me, at any time.

“Has anyone looked at the Land Forces Reserve Restructure web site. If the site is reflective of the work being done by LFRR PMO, then I would suggest that no one hold their breath expecting results in any improvements to the Reserve Army.” I take great exception to the fact that you would base your opinion of the work done by PMO LFRR on a web site. If you want to criticize me and my work, that is fine. I can accept that. But do not broad brush the entire staff here, who work hard and are doing their damnedest to do everything that YOU, the reserve community, has asked for. I also find it interesting that you would come to this bulletin board to be critical of another. I have on many occasions on that forum told the participants that the discussion board is for them and to let me know what they would like or not like to see. I don’t recall at any time seeing a post or message or any sort of contribution from you. It’s too bad. Had you brought this subject up there, we could have had an open and frank discussion about it with all the active participants there.

I would like to make one last point before ending this post. I think I need to remind you that PMO LFRR is a project that is trying to develop and Army Reserve of the future. Issues of today are dealt with by the Director of Land Reserve Management. I would have to say that the majority of topics that are being discussed on that forum are issues of today and not LFRR issues, but, as moderator, I let them continue in order that factual information is passed to reservists in the quickest method possible. You may see this as a gossip column…but tell that to the five recruits that I personally know of whose processing problems were solved as a result of that discussion board and as well from the private who publicly resigned on the bulletin board due to training frustrations but has since had a change of heart. Are those six reservists a “waste of money” to you , sir? They are not to me.


----------



## Harry (15 Oct 2002)

NMPeters 

Well hot doggedy doo.  I would surmise NMPeters that some of the problems with your board have little to do with abilities, but Chain of Command.

I personally know the individual who had the job and if it wasn‘t for an over zealous budget conscious G-1 and a quick to react Commander, you might still have a quality product.  

Too bloody bad some of the bean counters don‘t think before they act.

It is too bad; the Forces lost a solid, top-notch individual who put out quality work and for a fraction of what it will now cost, not only for the discussion board, but for the various Army sites.

Too bad indeed as the individual, a dedicated reservist hung up his uniform as well.  How much was actually saved:  zippo.  It will now cost more and take more pers to do what this one individual did, and look at how far behind you are.   Not to mention the loss of an excellent NCO from his unit.  Heck while we are at it, he was/is an IT Wizard, he has his own company to prove it.

And to say that there was no need to update, etc.  BS, if nothing is truly happening, update by removing.  And do tell, with what I have seen over the past year, NOTHING has happened that needed to be included as a SITREP etc.  Maybe some of the reservists in the trenches and on the drill floor can appraise me of this, and if nothing TRULY has happened in the past year, I owe the board an apology.  And while you reservists are at it, hmm, especially the new blood.  Where was your recruiting conducted?

Some times people will manipulate an issue to their benefit.  Especially just before they retire and then through happens chance end up in that very position, to the detriment or dismay of the original employee.  Pray tell this is not the case here?  

And don‘t bother pulling punches, because if you want both barrels, I will give it to you.

Make sure you do your homework before you defend this one.

Harry-Waiting Out    

I feel a flame about three feet tall   :evil:


----------



## Bill Smy (16 Oct 2002)

Here we go! I am a former Commanding Officer of a Militia unit, a Staff Officer at District, at FMCHQ, and spent 5 years as a Staff Officer in NDHQ working for the Chief of Reserves. I believe I can recognize smoke and mirrors when I see them.
107
I‘m sorry if I hurt your feelings. But please sit back and look at the facts.

My email to LFRR. On your site, you have an icon which says "Comments". I clicked that, up came Microsoft Explorer, with an email address "af107@issc.debbs.ndhq.dnd.ca".  I sent my comments to that address. Since you have not received them, I assume it‘s because of the NDHQ bureauracy - not my inability to determine that I should have sent my comments to you directly. If my way of sending comments to you is incorrect, you should remove the icon "Comments", not lambast me. Of course, I know your answer - "It‘s because we don‘t have a Web Master."

I don‘t know what‘s happened in the Army since I left it, but in my day a "Sitrep" was a report on current situations, not as you define it as "a historical collection" of information months (even years) out of date. No who asked a Company Commander for a Sitrep would expect, or accept, a discussion of last month‘s status!

If there is a staff at NDHQ (Director of Land Reserve Management) which should be answering most of the questions on your Forum site, why are you duplicating their mandate. Don‘t you have enough LFRR work to do? This is an example of duplication which wastes money.

As far as the Documents Page is concerned, I agree that those which are posted are important to understand the genisis of LFRR, but surely there are more current, and just as important, documents which should be made available.

You state that Aubrey‘s article concerned CF rather than Reserve recruiting. Why, then, did you post it? Certainly, Captain Grant made comments, but if you follow the thread of the discussion, he really did not provide the answers which were posed.

In conclusion, your comment "quite frankly, there has been nothing in the past year and a half (the time that I‘ve been employed at LFRR) that has been worthwhile posting there" says a lot about the progress of LFRR. I wonder if General Jefferies would agree.

  :evil:                                    :fifty:


----------



## NMPeters (16 Oct 2002)

First of all, I will address the comments by Harry. I do not know the person of whom you speak and I‘m sure that he is a very competent individual. That is a situation that is completely out of my hands and involves a different Directorate completely. And the Land Staff does not have a G1 so I don‘t even know if we are even speaking on the same level.

I never once said that nothing has happened in LFRR in the last year. Mr Smy referred to "the media page" and that is the page that I was commenting on. The page where news releases and newspaper articles about LFRR are posted. In the last year, there hasn‘t been any significant media coverage on LFRR...hence my statement.

"Some times people will manipulate an issue to their benefit. Especially just before they retire and then through happens chance end up in that very position, to the detriment or dismay of the original employee. Pray tell this is not the case here?" Harry, I have read this part of your post over and over and over and forgive me if I‘m being obtuse, but I have no idea what you are getting at here or where you are coming from. I understand the process to which you are referring; however I can‘t seem to place it into context of this conversation.

Mr Smy, my feelings were not hurt. Thank you for pointing out that there is a problem with that comments button. Up until this point, I didn‘t know that the problem existed. I will endeavour to get it corrected, now that the Army finally does have a Webmaster on staff. As a former staff officer, I‘m sure you can appreciate that it would have been nice to have received a call about the problem, rather than through a sarcastic, public outcry.

I‘d like to ask you, Mr. Smy, in your time, what happened to the Sitreps when people were done gleaning the information from them? Were they destroyed or thrown away? My guess is that they were filed in chronological order. People may or may not have looked back through that file...but they were there. The Sitreps page on the site is no different than the filing cabinet, it just happens to be electronic. And, as an aside, I don‘t know why the pages were called Sitreps. I wasn‘t here when the site was developed, I inherited it. If you will notice, the pages are no longer called Sitreps, but Updates. A small matter, I know, but the average person in the public who may be reading that site has no idea what the acronym Sitrep means.

If there is an issue on that bulletin board that requires a response from DLRM, then I will get the answer from them or one of the staff officers there will answer it. If you go to a lot of the threads, you will see that DLRM is quite active in that forum. And yes, I have enough LFRR work to do...plenty actually. But I think it would be more of a waste of time and money to have two Army Reserve discussion boards running with two moderators. Don‘t you? PMO LFRR works closely with DLRM and I don‘t mind pointing out to DLRM a contentious or burning issue which requires their attention. I bring points from the discussion board to our weekly round table meetings where there is also DLRM representation. It is there that we determine whether LFRR or DLRM will handle a certain point. This is to ensure that there is no duplication of effort or waste of money.

You are correct. There are other documents that could have been posted on the documents page. However, my hands have been rather tied lately due to the IT support.

I posted the article for two reasons. One to generate discussion. I know the participants of that board well enough that if I started a thread entitled .... "Bagels"....somehow or another they‘d get around to discussing an issue that is a problem. It was summer, it was a slow discussion period, I just wanted the people to talk. I don‘t think that there is anything wrong with encouraging discussion. Secondly, the CF doesn‘t hire one agency to develop Reg Force recruiting ads and another to develop Res Force recruiting ads. It‘s all done by the same company, it‘s all part of one large marketing campaign. So it affects all recruiting advertising, it doesn‘t differentiate. 

As for your last comment quoting me...again out of context...I will reiterate what I said to Harry. You referred to "the media page" and that is the page that I was commenting on. The page where news releases and newspaper articles about LFRR are posted. In the last year, there hasn‘t been any significant media coverage on LFRR...hence my statement about nothing happening in the last year and a half. I should have stated that nothing happened IN THE MEDIA in the last year and a half. Perhaps that would have quelled any misunderstanding.


----------



## John Nayduk (16 Oct 2002)

Whatever personal axes there are to grind, I have to say that Major Peters has always been very helpful with every request I have made of her in the past and I don’t doubt she will in the future.  All you have to do is ask.

While on the subject of recruiting, it really doesn’t matter who does the advertising since the system makes it very difficult to get in anyway.


----------



## BestOfTheBest (16 Oct 2002)

Where getting a new design of the army website?
WHEN? and what are the changes?


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Oct 2002)

Whether a web site meets all our expectations has a tenuous, if any, connection to improvements in the Army Reserve.  I am certain that each one of us could pick a lot of fly shot out of the pepper of anyone else‘s turf.  I for one will be glad when/if the judgemental culture of "fix the blame, not the problem" ages out of the CF.

Any unmoderated bulletin board or mailing list is prone to become a gossip column.  However, the signal-to-noise ratio on the LFRR board is in my opinion excellent.  From my vantage point, the LFRR site and PMO staff have been more successful at passing certain useful information than the combined efforts of the people between me and Ottawa.

I do a lot of web surfing, and occasionally encounter apparent technical errors.  When I do, I email the site administrator or use other means to explain the problem.  It costs me nothing to do so pleasantly.

BTW, are we to infer that a "solid, top-notch dedicated individual" hung up the part-time clothes out of bitterness?  Maybe some character reassessment is in order.

The CLS is LGen Mike Jeffery.


----------



## Harry (16 Oct 2002)

CLS was info‘d and it came down to a Col who staffed a rec that indicated potential C of C probs and possible cost recovery.  None substantiated.

Why did that person leave.  Simple, they were one of the few qualified graphic artist in the system, as well as Network, Web site and various other mundane IS quals.

The person had enough, this was the third time that they had been put in this position, IE terminated.  Then to see the position mysteriously resurrected with an unqualified/underqualified officer/Snr NCO in charge.

After 11 years of progressive work in this field and the self serving/nepotistic decisions of the C of C, it was time to say good-by.  And if you want to question moral fibre, not in this case.  The pers never once complained, nor challenged the C of C.

The question to the LS was through a third party organization, and was not originated by the individual.  It was staffed as a question of why the position he staffed was terminated and the justification.

My mistake on the use of G-1, whatever the guys title is, it escapes me at this time.  He was the Col in charge of budgets and other admin functions.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Oct 2002)

I could understand some bitterness if a position were resurrected.  Of course, if the duties were simply transferred to someone else‘s task list, there‘d be no cause for hard feelings.

I suppose people have different thresholds.  I know several people who‘ve had Class B/C cut short (some more than once); I don‘t know any who transferred their resentment to their home (militia) unit.


----------



## Harry (16 Oct 2002)

Brad, there has been a number of these types of incidents or what ever you want to call them over the past couple of years at LFC and LFWA stand out to me.  

The literal sacrificing of a position and the replacement of a trained qualified person with (in most cases) a higher (commissioned) ranked individual with little to no experience.  In a couple it was so blatantly obvious.  IE, person in the reg force lobbies for removal of reservist.  Said reg retires, and low and behold becomes a reserve themselves and suddenly has that very position.  And very few had anything to do with centralizing responsibilities.

Ironically the same Col who greased a couple other long serving dedicated reservists, over so called budgetary concerns.  And in the end, it was discovered that the very budgets he was playing with (and I don‘t use this loosely), weren‘t even his.  Another Teflon Don in the CF.

And the individual who left. I am trying to convince the individual to post here, and then you can get it from the horse‘s mouth.  Instead of moi.   I think his rendition of the after action will put a light on the issue that might prove illuminating.

Things aren‘t always warm and fuzzy as some in here would love to believe.

UBIQUE


----------



## JJ Man (17 Oct 2002)

Hey Col, you are typical of the BS that plagues all levels of the CF. You would rather bitch and sulk rather than call somebody to ask some questions and get the truth because the truth would expose your own shortcomings.

I have personnally called NM Peters on an LFRR matter and she sent me all the info she had, got me in touch with the SO of concern (on the same day) and continued to send me info after the fact. 

Although I have not felt the need to post on the LFRR site, don‘t you think it is pretty cool that in the CF we have a forum where everyone from Pte shnooks to Col Blow can vent their splean or ask some dumb ***  questions and maybe get some answers from a sme.

Why does LFRR take so long? Ask yourself, where is the flip‘n money to make it happen and how many militia rice bowls and sacred cows have to be appeased before anything can happen. 

So maybe you and the other armchair generals lurking on these sites should stick to bitching in your dark corners and not sully the names of hard working SOs like NM. At least she is working for positive change and not sitting around bitching like you. But, bitching about the "others" and doing bugger all is more like your style isn‘t it? 

  :fifty:


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Oct 2002)

OK, JJ - I usually don‘t jump into things which I know nothing about, but here it goes... I am not sure that the Colonel is indeed a Colonel, but let‘s assume for a moment that he is. His posts have always seemed well thought out, and without fluff. It is apparent that there are 2 very polarized sides to this story. I don‘t know, and I don‘t care. I have never even been to the site in question. Whether he was mistaken or not, I don‘t think the Colonel‘s aggravation was malicious, but from genuine concern and frustration. I would, however suggest, that YOUR comments, the tone, and the lack of respect are indeed BS, and if representative, part of the problems with today‘s CF. I have often disagreed with Colonels, Majors, RSMs, etc. in my career, and have always been able to make my point without ranting like an angry teenager. The tone of your post (it‘s certainly easy to be tough and   :flame:  outspoken on these means) diffused any valid points that you may have raised.


----------



## NMPeters (21 Oct 2002)

Ok, ok, let‘s not get into a cyber bun fight over this. I appreciate everyones comments, both the critical and the supportive. Mr. Smy and I disagree on certain issues and we probably always will. That‘s life and that‘s what makes life so very interesting       Mr. Smy, if you wish to continue this discussion offline, I am more than willing to do so.

Yes, the Army will soon be uploading a completely redesigned web site. The target launch for this is mid-November. As to what on the site will be changing....everything. I have seen what has been developed so far and I think that everyone will be pleased with it. I have to say that the virtual tour of the equipment is amazing. I, for one, am looking forward to the new site.


----------

