Cutting the CF/DND HQ bloat - Excess CF Sr Leadership, Public Servants and Contractors

[54/102 CEF]

I have split off the double-dipper tangent.  While many individuals within the HQ bloat are double-dippers many are not - and many double-dippers are not part of the HQ bloat problem.  The tangent is now here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/87805.0.html

The question needs to be which permanent full time reserve positions are supporting the reserves.  Those reserve positions which are not supporting the reserves need to be removed and the reserve pay re-invested back the the reserves.

Consider that CTC HQ is nearly 1/3 Class B/A and the majority of these pers are concerned on a day-to-day basis with regular force topics.  Most of these positions do not belong where they are being used.  If the work is really that important (a legitimate question in itself), then Reg F PYs should be assigned and the B/A positions re-assigned to where they are concerned on a day-to-day basis with reserve force topics.

I'm only commenting on the words here and not MCG

Think about this business of Reserves only Support and Train reserves and nothing else.

To my mind this completely de-links Army Reg and Res Forces

Got trouble somewhere? Come on down.

No Reg F deployed? Stay the hell away is the message I'm receiving.

No Reg F deployed? Maybe time to Walk the Andy Leslie Walk and turn back 15% of the pay package and a further 15% of that as your standing bonus to come off civvy street to be on standbye for when the Feds vs the Army deploy you.

 

[McG]

Think about this business of Reserves only Support and Train reserves and nothing else.

To my mind this completely de-links Army Reg and Res Forces

Legally, the Regular Force and Reserve Force are separate and constrained as to which my provide permanent fulltime service.  Within these constraints, reasonable arguments can be made for temporary fulltime service of reservists for operational requirements or to augment the regular force for specific projects or tasks (ie. something with a defined start & end).  Reasonable arguments can also be made permanent fulltime reserve positions that directly support or contribute to the reserve force (this even includes small representation on strategic level staffs to ensure reserve concerns and interests are properly heard and addressed) in acheiving its part-time mandate.

There are a finite number of permanent reserve positions available, and the reserve force can make productive use of all of them.  If someone wants to permanently serve full time and within regular force establishments, then that person should serve in the regular force.  We should not be stealing a position from the reserve force so that said person can keep his cake and eat it too.

Through training standards and collective training, we can ensure our regular and reserve forces are seamlessly interoperable on domestic and international missions.  We do not need hundreds of fulltime reservists providing no return value to the reserve force from within the bowls of NDHQ.

So, getting back to the core idea of this thread – NDHQ is bloated and needs a thorough review (and the same can be said of HQ layers below NDHQ).  As the structure is streamlined, we need to reinvest military HQ bloat as muscle back into “the front line” - including the field force, ships, operational units of the RCAF, training establishments and those units who support the day-to-day activities of the former (note this does not include lower HQs).  As the structure is streamlined, we need to reinvest reserve positions and reserve pay back into the reserve force.

It seems retired LGen Leslie was making his pitch to the Senate defence committee on this topic yesterday:

Ex-top soldier pitches plan to cut $1 billion
Murray Brewster
The Chronicle-Herald
04 Oct 2011

OTTAWA - The former soldier who's recommended deep cuts at the Department of National Defence headquarters says the Conservative government has an opportunity to implement historic change.

Retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie made his pitch for up to $1 billion in savings before the Senate defence committee on Monday, describing the 43 recommendations in his report as "moderately tough choices" that will require political will to implement.

Leslie, who headed the army throughout most of the Afghan war, was put in charge of designing a reorganized military and his findings, released last month, have created waves.

His report calls for cutting a bloated headquarters establishment in Ottawa where approximately 20,000 uniformed members and civil servants oversee operations as well as administration.

He recommended cuts on the bureaucratic side of DND, trimming jobs at headquarters and reallocating resources in measures that could affect up to 11,000 jobs. Among the suggestions, Leslie says the full-time reservists, called up during the Afghan war into headquarters positions, could be demobilized and returned to part-time status.

Under the plan, the department would cut money spent on outside contractors and consultants.

"I think the only person who agrees with all of my recommendations is me," Leslie told the committee, acknowledging the rancour with which the report has been received inside the Ottawa headquarters.

"It is up to the government of Canada to either accept or not the recommendations and to actually conduct the implementation and that is, arguably, the toughest part of all. This has to be a government of Canada driven activity."

The transformation report would "destroy" the Canadian military if fully implemented, retired chief of defence staff general Rick Hillier has warned.

Leslie countered by saying he spent over 30 years in uniform and would never do anything to destroy the Forces, but argued that a fiscal reality of cutbacks is going to kick in, regardless of whether the Forces wants to acknowledge it.

After nearly a decade of rising defence spending and with a multi-billion dollar budget deficit, Leslie said the military "can't logically expect to go to government and say, please sir, can we have some more."

The study, in which Leslie sought out the business community for best practises, says that while the front-line positions grew by around 10 per cent during the war, the number of headquarters and non-operational jobs at DND ballooned by almost 40 per cent.

Leslie said he and his team spent 10 months glued to computer screens and spread sheets and at least once a week he was faced with an "Oh my God" moment upon discovering something startling or out of whack within the Defence Department's giant layered bureaucracy.

Panel warned about cuts to military
Reduce spending at headquarters, not on front lines, ex-general says
Lee Berthiaume
Ottawa Citizen
04 Oct 2011

If the military doesn't cut back on contractors or the number of staff working at National Defence headquarters, front line soldiers and the equipment they rely on will inevitably suffer, a recently retired general told a Senate committee on Monday.

"Sometimes you only find out the hard way, when you're on that two-way range and people are shooting back at you, that you actually let your troops down by skimping on their training money and their spare bits," retired Gen. Andrew Leslie said.

But in an exclusive interview, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the former general's recommendations are only one factor the government is considering and that all spending will be examined "with a fine-tooth comb."

With major combat operations in Afghanistan and Libya and support for the Canadian Forces a Conservative priority, the Defence Department's budget has grown from $15 billion in 2006 to $21 billion. Now, like all other departments, the military is being asked to cut spending.

For more than a year, Leslie served as chief of transformation, examining the Canadian Forces' structure and spending to find efficiencies. His final report, which was leaked to the media in August before being released to the public, contains 43 recommendations that Leslie says will save $1 billion if implemented.

Chief among these are cutting up to 30 per cent of the $2.7 billion spent on contractors, consultants and private service providers and reducing by 4,500 the number of full-time reservists working at headquarters.

In his testimony to the Senate defence committee, Leslie acknowledged there will be pain as the government seeks to bring the deficit under control, particularly after years of largesse in the Defence Department. But "in short, we're going to have to reduce the tail of today while investing in the teeth of tomorrow," he said.

In an allusion to the way the Chrétien government implemented spending cuts in the 1990s, which saw shortages of spare parts, equipment and even ammunition, Leslie said the money must not come out of the front line.

"One of the areas that historically has been the easiest for a variety of organizations to cut," he said, "has been in the spare bits that are required to keep the tanks and armoured vehicles rolling or ships sailing or planes flying. Because you can recoup money very quickly without seeing an absolute degradation in operations for a year or two."

Leslie, who retired three weeks ago after more than 30 years in the military, said the long-term damage of cuts could be significant, leaving the Canadian Forces increasingly unable to conduct operations or provide services. It could also put soldiers in harm's way.

"So I would watch like a hawk from this moment forward the monies that are allocated to national procurement. And if they go down by one cent as compared to last year, I would ask some really hard questions as to why the money is coming out of spare bits and not headquarters and overhead."

Earlier in the day, the defence minister told Postmedia News that Leslie's report had been "instructive on a number of levels."

"But it's one stream of information," MacKay added. "Keep in mind that we have numerous sources of information that we're relying on as we go through transformation, not the least of which is the senior (military) leadership."

The minister said the Defence Department will "do our part" to help bring the deficit under control.

"Clearly our core capabilities and our readiness and our support for our personnel are key," he said when asked what was off the table. "But we are looking at everything with a fine-tooth comb to achieve efficiencies."

War on paper pushers
Former general says time to cut DND bureaucrats
Bryn Weese
The Edmonton Sun
04 Oct 2011

OTTAWA-- Defence bureaucrats are gobbling up dollars needed by Canada's fighting forces, retired Gen. Andrew Leslie told the Senate's defence committee on Monday.

Leslie, who was made chief of transformation last year, conceded some of his 43 recommendations will not be popular, but stressed transformation is necessary to prepare the Canadian Forces for the future. "I'm quite sure there's enough information in the report ... to ensure that just about everybody is upset with something that's in there," Leslie said. "But this is an opportunity ... to make the CF and DND leaner, more agile, better focused on output instead of process."

Among his recommendations is finding $1 billion in savings from the bureaucracy, dramatically reducing the 20,000 staff at headquarters in Ottawa, and slashing the money spent on consultants and contractors by 30%.

Former chief of defence staff Rick Hillier warned implementing the report would destroy the Canadian Forces.

Leslie defended his work to the senators.

"I've been a soldier for almost 35 years, I've carried a rifle, I've fought for my country, I've fought for my troops. I would never recommend anything that would destroy the Canadian Forces," he said.

STAFF BALLOONED

Among his report's findings is that between 2004 and 2010, civilian hires at DND outpaced uniformed hires by 3-to-1. Staff at headquarters in Ottawa ballooned by almost 40%.

The government has said the civilian hires at headquarters were necessary to backfill positions left vacant by Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, "so that military members could focus their efforts on operational matters," wrote Jay Paxton, a spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay, in a recent e-mail.

MacKay's office has said his recommendations would be considered as part of the federal budget process next year.

... also, to correct my last, CTC HQ is only nearly 1/4 Class B/A.  That is still an awful lot of reserve pay not benefiting the reserve force (and does not account for the glut of Class B).

 

[dapaterson]

Andrew Leslie calling for cuts.  Nixon going to China.  Discuss.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Andrew Leslie calling for cuts.  Nixon going to China.  Discuss.

Further grist for said discussion:

CGI Group Inc., a leading provider of information technology and business process services, today announced the opening of a new Canadian Defence, Public Safety and Intelligence business unit based in Ottawa with capabilities to serve the Canadian Armed Forces around the globe.  In addition, the Company also announced the appointment of Lieutenant General Andrew Leslie to lead the new Defence, Public Safety and Intelligence unit. The offering will build on the corporation's global expertise to develop and implement innovative, world-class solutions tailored to specific knowledge and requirements of Canada's modern-day defence and security challenges.

(....)

"I look forward to serving Canadians in a different capacity but with equally targeted objectives," commented Lt.-Gen. Leslie. "An efficient government able to take innovative actions combined with technologically savvy military and intelligence capabilities are needed to defend and protect all Canadians. I'm proud to join CGI, a home-grown global champion to help meet these unprecedented security challenges head-on."

With a 35-year history of partnering with nearly 100 Canadian government civilian agencies, CGI's work in defence and intelligence has remained limited.

However, with more than 7,500 specialists and professional serving governments globally, CGI will offer a spectrum of services and solutions to Canadian military, defence, public safety and intelligence organizations, including such areas of expertise as:
- advanced analytics;
- biometrics & cybersecurity;
- operational logistics;
- systems engineering; and,
- training ....

CGI news release, 29 Sept 11

 

[Kirkhill]

Is LGen (retd) Leslie now saying that DND can now save a billion dollars by firing all the consultants and hiring him instead?

Just askin'.

 

[Pusser]

What I find interesting in all of this is that LGen Leslie (Ret'd) seems to be decrying the overhiring of Reservists in full time staff positions.  One of the biggest offenders for that was the Army - which he commanded at the time...

 

[Edward Campbell]

What I find interesting in all of this is that LGen Leslie (Ret'd) seems to be decrying the overhiring of Reservists in full time staff positions.  One of the biggest offenders for that was the Army - which he commanded at the time...

What about all the NAVRES sailors on the MCDVs? Is that not a problems, both practically, for the NAVRES, itself, and procedurally, for the CF?

 

[dapaterson]

LGen Leslie's comments to the senate yesterday are troubling.  Troubling that he informed the senators that, once in the transformation job, every week he discovered some new "Things shouldn't be like that" problem.

Here's the rub:  He had just commanded roughly 1/3 of the Canadian Forces.  He was one of the commanders letting all those problems fester and grow.  The next skill testing question, that LGen Leslie was never asked, was why he permitted these problems when he was in command?


Edward: I am a frequent critic of current Reserve employment patterns, but I will try to be fair to the RCN and (even worse offenders) the RCAF.  Both saw a gap between the Regular Force PYs they were assigned and the tasks they were to accomplish.  Both bridged that gap by committing their Reserve (in whole or in part).  Neither made any significant effort to reconstitute a Reserve.  (As we all know, doctrine is for reading on course, not for practice in the real world).

That DND/CF's central agencies failed to provide strong controls, and failed to supervise and make these acts knowingly and deliberately, rests on their heads.

The Army has many sins of its own in this realm; Jack English is perhaps on the fringes (lunatic fringe, even) but does highlight that the unconstrained growth of full-time Reserve service has profound impacts on the part-time Reservist including loss of progression opportunities; increases in training burden that are not justified in the part-time context; and loss of leadership ranks to full-time service.  Indeed, some staff analysis suggests that at its peak, over half of parading Army Reserve Captains, Majors, Master Warrant Officers, Warrant Officers and Sergerants were on full-time service.  Remove half the mid-level leadership from a part time organization and its ability to thrive is severly impacted.

 

[Edward Campbell]

My sense, for what little it's worth, is that the most deleterious effect of so many NAVRES sailors doing so much full time service at sea, in the MCDVs, is on the NAVRES divisions in places from St John's through Saskatoon and on to Victoria. I suspect that the divisions are paying a price because too many senior people are at sea rather than at "home," helping to lead and manage the more prosaic but still essential training in the "stone frigates."

 

[George Wallace]

My sense, for what little it's worth, is that the most deleterious effect of so many NAVRES sailors doing so much full time service at sea, in the MCDVs, is on the NAVRES divisions in places from St John's through Saskatoon and on to Victoria. I suspect that the divisions are paying a price because too many senior people are at sea rather than at "home," helping to lead and manage the more prosaic but still essential training in the "stone frigates."

True, but they are gaining experience that they can not gain in those "stone frigates".  What has to be done is control the amount of time they are serving full time at sea, so as not to make them "permanent members".  A "rotation" would be better, so that they would be back at their "stone frigates" to pass on their knowledge and experience.

Much can be learned from the days that the Army had the AVGP as a "Tank Trainer".  Bad habits were learned and had to be broken and taught all anew once the members actually got on a tank.  Something I witnessed first hand in Suffield during RV'85.  These can be compared to what the NAVRES has done with the MCDVs.  Lessons learned at sea are not the same as what one would learn in a "stone frigate" training environment unless that experience can be brought back to the "stone frigates".

 

[FlyingDutchman]

"What!?!? The Emporer isn't wearing any clothes?!?!

"Emporer, I must protest about your lack of clothes."
"Off with his head!"

 

[daftandbarmy]

The Army has many sins of its own in this realm; Jack English is perhaps on the fringes (lunatic fringe, even) but does highlight that the unconstrained growth of full-time Reserve service has profound impacts on the part-time Reservist including loss of progression opportunities; increases in training burden that are not justified in the part-time context; and loss of leadership ranks to full-time service.  Indeed, some staff analysis suggests that at its peak, over half of parading Army Reserve Captains, Majors, Master Warrant Officers, Warrant Officers and Sergerants were on full-time service.  Remove half the mid-level leadership from a part time organization and its ability to thrive is severly impacted.

The other problem is that FT reservists have been drawn back into the units and not fairly compensated for contributing in their 'spare time'. The units have also grown accustomed to having a plethora of FT folks to rely on to do things, so we've wound up with LOTS of stuff to do that is of secondary importance to our main effort: training for war. (That IS our main effort, isn't it?)

 

[OldSolduer]

I'd like to add that as a condition for Class B employment the CO and RSM to sign off a Class B they want that member to parade regularly and come out on weekends anyways, and it doesn't matter who the employer is. I've tried to tell them that its like a posting...you won't expect someone posted out to come back every Tuesday.
The RCAF Reserve (if it is in fact called that) hired one of our Sgts and his condition of employment basically stated "You WILL NOT parade Tuesdays and weekends with the Army PRes".

 

[Pusser]

What about all the NAVRES sailors on the MCDVs? Is that not a problems, both practically, for the NAVRES, itself, and procedurally, for the CF?

I never said that isn't a problem (because I agree that it is).  My point was that it's unfair of people who used to live in glass houses to throw stones at them after they leave.

 

[Pusser]

I'd like to add that as a condition for Class B employment the CO and RSM to sign off a Class B they want that member to parade regularly and come out on weekends anyways, and it doesn't matter who the employer is. I've tried to tell them that its like a posting...you won't expect someone posted out to come back every Tuesday.
The RCAF Reserve (if it is in fact called that) hired one of our Sgts and his condition of employment basically stated "You WILL NOT parade Tuesdays and weekends with the Army PRes".

I used to run into this problem in one unit where I had full time Reservists working for me who were also "expected" to parade with their parent unit.  This is simply wrong at the basic level in that they essentially do this without pay as they receive no compensation for parading with the parent unit.  The pressure to provide free labour to Reserve units is just one of the problems that needs to be addressed.

 

[dapaterson]

I used to run into this problem in one unit where I had full time Reservists working for me who were also "expected" to parade with their parent unit.  This is simply wrong at the basic level in that they essentially do this without pay as they receive no compensation for parading with the parent unit.  The pressure to provide free labour to Reserve units is just one of the problems that needs to be addressed.

Two sides to the problem.  The employing unit has no responsibility to ensure that the rank/trade they want is readily available.  There were no constraints other than a valid fin code to employ people.

So what is the parent unit to do when they lose senior folks?  There's no DGMC working to fill their holes.  We've permitted a system that allows any demand, no matter how outlandish, as long as the full-time employer has money - and the part-time parent unit has no recourse - by policy, they must send up nominations.  And once Bloggins is employed full time:

(a) the parent unit can't promote to backfill, since Bloggins is still in that position;

(b) the parent unit still does routine admin for Bloggins, who is not contributing to the unit (and sometimes non-routine admin as well - attending officer, anyone?);

(c) the employing unit may or may not be able to take Bloggins on their establishment, and may or may not be willing to take Bloggins on their establishment even if they can.


If we want our part-time Reserve units to spend their time and efforts administering full-time pers working in other units, then our model is more broken than I thought.


Perhaps the employing units need to step up to the plate:

(a) Define requirements in advance so a pers production system can attempt to meet them;

(b) Take ownership of their full-time personnel - take them on their establishments, do their routine admin, and provide their support;

(c) Define an accounting system that permits us to report on full-time Reservists depending on whether they are employed i nsupprot of the Reserevs or not;

(d) Prioritize efforts and initiatives and stop doing lower priority things.

 

[OldSolduer]

Good points dapaterson.

I fully agree. When I took on this Class B I was removed from LFC and tranferred to the NDHQ PRL, under CMP. They do my admin, and for the most part are good with it.

The same should apply to any Class B - the employing unit MUST take ownership.

 

[GAP]

So DAP, given those parameters, what happens when the unit that acquired Bloggins...no longer wants him, but his position has been backfilled in the meantime?

Sounds like it would be the death knell to potential volunteers who know that if they take the Class B, they have no position to return to when it's finished....(that's the first thing that came to mind when I read what you wrote...)

 

[Haggis]

I'd like to add that as a condition for Class B employment the CO and RSM to sign off a Class B they want that member to parade regularly and come out on weekends anyways, and it doesn't matter who the employer is.

And that practise is in direct contravention of the Army Commander's policy letter of 03 July 09, signed by LGen Leslie himself.  Para 6 reads, in part:

"Voluntary service with the home unit by Reserve Force officers and soldiers serving on Class "B" service is admirable and should be facilitated.  However, all involved must bear in mind the professional and personal wellbeing of the officers and soldiers who perform such service, and that it is voluntary and shall not be compelled."

 

[dapaterson]

So DAP, given those parameters, what happens when the unit that acquired Bloggins...no longer wants him, but his position has been backfilled in the meantime?

Sounds like it would be the death knell to potential volunteers who know that if they take the Class B, they have no position to return to when it's finished....(that's the first thing that came to mind when I read what you wrote...)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  The parent unit probably doesn't have a large number of spare positions, particularly at senior ranks.  So are they to go without a WO or a Maj for three years while Bloggins is away?  And will Bloggins return for good, or just hang around while he's looking for his next full-time gig?

That's why requirements definition is important, and not "anyone with a fin code" hiring - so we can properly manage people.

Frankly:  if you don't want to parade and participate in a Reserve unit's activities, leave the unit.  You can keep in touch, still participate in mess life and other events, just don't tie up a position.

Much of this is a command responsibility - but at a higher level than individual units.  Leaving units to muck about and try to resolve problems without firm guidance from on high is unfair.  Right now, policy is filled with "mays" and "mights" instead of "wills" and "shalls".