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

Dress and Deportment

Riobeard said:
...
...   As for those who share the depth and breadth of experience I welcome your comments and value them, I also take notice that they are more constuctive and balanced.

If ANY of you have problems with the CIC, then I suggest you stop your rants and get involved, we'd love to have you help us raise the standards and bring your personal wealth of experience to the movement.   How about becoming part of the solution vs. the Problem?

If you'd like to post suggestions, please do, but lets be constructive folks.   And if your going to voice your opinions which you are free to do, please don't go off on tangents.

OK, agreed.  How about I involve myself by writing to Ron Buck?

Here's my first DRAFT:

----------
Dear Admiral;

I have noted a few Cadet Instructor Cadre officers here in Ottawa.  I'm sure I failed to notice many others because they, the ones I didn't notice, were not slovenly.

I was somewhat surprised to learn that CIC officers are officers in the Reserve component of the Canadian Forces; it had, previously, thought that cadet leaders were civilian volunteers.

Since the '60s, in both the Regular and Reserve forces, officers and other ranks wear very similar uniforms.  Save for rank badges and, sometimes, a bit of braid on caps, there is not much difference in the uniforms of, say, a ship's captain and an able seaman or an infantry company commander and a private in a rifle platoon.  Why then, I wonder, do CIC officers dress in a manner which is markedly different from the cadets whom they lead?

I recommend that you revisit the issue of standards, including standards of fitness and dress and deportment, for the CIC and, specifically, I recommend that the CIC â “ like the Canadian Rangers â “ have a 'special' uniform, based on the one worn by cadets.

Regards

etc

----------

Comments?  Suggestions?
 
Meridian let me refresh your memory about your post:
To be honest, the worst case of this was CIC; when I was at CFSJ in St-Jean, we had officers doing the MTAP (I think thats the acronym) language courses from all over NATO and eastern Europe.  We'd have CIC training weekends where the CIC's would come and do seminars and the like (I dint really know what), and the foreign officers would just look appalled at all these Canadian uniformed people who were overweight and looking like bags of -----.  
Excuse me if this isn't Bashing, it would seem I don't properly understand the term.... ;)

Your use of the term "all these Canadian Uniformed people who were overweight and looked like bags of -----." infers that they / we all have such an appearance.  It's a generalization and a "bash" in my opinion.  You also state you don't really understand what they were doing.  If you were an informed individual you'd perhaps had been able to explain to your foreign comrads who they were and what they were doing, but I suspect you didn't as you couldn't.
Did you take the time to talk to anyone about this when it happened?  Never pass a fault my friend, if you failed to bring this to the  :eek:attention of someone from the CIC school or to the individuals in a constructive manner, then you're part of the problem.
I take it upon myself as an officer to have a word with ANYONE that I see who is failing in their dress or deportment in a constructive manner.  It's my job as an officer and member of the Canadian Forces.  Is it not your job too? :eek:
 
Edward,
  Sure if that's how you feel, by all means.  But to continue with lack of generarities, how be you find the local cadet corp and volunteer to offer them the benefit of your 35+ years of service and help them raise the standard from within.  I saw a problem, I got involved, I've made a difference.  How about you?  You see a problem and write a letter.....hmmmm....
  Actions not words make a difference.
 
Riobeard - As an Officer Cadet, I did not find myself in the appropriate position to be approaching senior officers and making comments as to their dress or deportment. Several of us did, however, make comments to our staff and, IIRC, the answer back was "its the CIC, what do you expect".

As for my specific comments earlier, you are correct, that was a generalization and the terminology (specifically the word "all") should have better reflected the situation, however my intent was to underline that the foreign officers recognized this group as a group, and to communicate just how this group was identifiable and the fact that we as young officers-to-be were incredibly embarrassed at trying to show the differences between we and them.

Indeed we did explain the role of the CIC in fostering interest in the forces and providing leadership to select members of canadian youth, but in any event it was still difficult to explain why someone wearing the same uniform as me did not have to meet the same physical fitness or deportment standards. (Note that many of the OCdts I was with were ex-cadets, and as such were very familiar with the purpose of the Cadet movement).

As far as bashing, JavaMan asked directed questions, as I previously stated, and I do not see why those continue to be ignored in favour of pointing out how I generalized.  Again, I apologize for my generalization as I have met some extremely dedicated CIC officers...

 
Edward Campbell said:
OK, agreed.   How about I involve myself by writing to Ron Buck?

Here's my first DRAFT:
Comments?   Suggestions?

Cadets (sea cadets, anyway) wore the same uniform as service members up until unification.  How's that grab you?

At any rate, I think there's considerable advantage to be had in ensuring a very clear line between officers and cadets.  The current social thinking has tended to blur that line in the Forces, hence the similar uniforms across ranks, but with cadets it remains a very solid and rather important line.
 
Meridian said:
Several of us did, however, make comments to our staff and, IIRC, the answer back was "its the CIC, what do you expect".

That was a very poor response on their part.

Meridian said:
Indeed we did explain the role of the CIC in fostering interest in the forces and providing leadership to select members of canadian youth, but in any event it was still difficult to explain why someone wearing the same uniform as me did not have to meet the same physical fitness or deportment standards.

There are no differing deportment standards, and you should (once you get a stripe or two) never let anyone by with poor deportment just because of his branch or trade.

If you have to explain the differing physical fitness standards to someone, I would suggest mentioning that CIC officers work principally in offices and classrooms, and are not called upon to fill combat roles, so the resources are not put into maintaining as high a level of fitness as is done with combat pers.  Let your colleagues draw their own conclusions as to why some personnel, in the CIC and out, don't maintain what one might consider to be an appropriate fitness level.
 
Meridian thank you for your comments and clarification of your instance of angst in CFSJ.
As to your comment about Javamans posting here is what I believe:
- yes the CIC needs to improve their standards if for no other reason than to be able to walk the walk that is preached to cadets about dress, deportment and physical fitness.  I personally take all of these to heart and lead by example.
- yes the CIC needs to have higher standards of training, they do well with what is given but there is always room for improvement and each CIC officer should, as part of their terms of service, be required to make the effort to spend time indulging themselves in improving their own knowledge, and physical condition.
- yes the CIC needs to be more "selective" for want of a better word in those who they hire, and retain.
I don't believe any of the CIC officers who have posted here or anywhere else on the forum will dispute any of these.  We all feel that there is room for improvement.  But again I repeat that if you see a problem you need to act and I thank you for at the very least brining what you saw to the attention of your staf.  Their lack of action speaks volumes as to their regard and makes them part of the problem.  They should have acted and at the very least passed along your concerns and circumstances.
 
Neill McKay said:
At any rate, I think there's considerable advantage to be had in ensuring a very clear line between officers and cadets.   The current social thinking has tended to blur that line in the Forces, hence the similar uniforms across ranks, but with cadets it remains a very solid and rather important line.

Well, thank you for the (indirect) reply...but I don't really buy that argument, though. Why is a separate uniform a "solid and rather important line?" Can you please clarify why? Isn't a set of officers bars enough of a distinction? I see this as a question of representation. IMO, A CIC officer has more in common with a cadet than any other type of CF member (regular, reserve, whatever), and their role in the CF, the training they're given, and the types of employment they are qualified to take. It seems odd to me that the CIC does not have a uniform that reflects that association and these skillsets; if anything it distances them from the cadets they're trying to lead. It's also a question of representation from without. As it was mentioned in this thread, even foreign militaries have noticed this difference.

Riobeard: As for the "Bashing" comment...I have to disagree there. In my opinion, this site is so great because CF members can discuss these types of issues in an environment of equality where they can speak freely and honestly, without fear of reprisal. Sure it's abused by some people, but by and large it's the only place where a corporal can tell a captain (in a respectful manner, obviously) EXACTLY what he or she thinks about an issue. The question then is whether or not the captain thinks what the corporal is asking is a fair and honest critical question, and willing to hear a new point of view, or simply dismiss it as "bashing". Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

Also, your other comments WRT not passing a fault and being a part of the solution and not part of the problem. The way I see it, members on this site have identified an issue, and by discussing it here we have helped bring it to the attention of people such as yourself who can address the issue.   Would you agree that thats a fair observation?


Cheers,

:dontpanic:
 
Javaman,  I do indeed agree with your last two points about open and honest discussion, bringing things up etc.
I do have a problem with the way in which some members of this forum choose to do so with generalities.
Merely pointing out problems based on limited experience, single instances or occurrences, vs. voicing a well laid out, and well researched position based on fact, to me, is the difference between bashing and debating a subject.  And I prefer that people offer rational solutions based on researched knowledge vs. throwing out off hand comments.

Oh and BTW, Mr. Campell, respectfully sir, if you wish to voice your comments you might want to send them off to Major General H.M.Petras the current Chief or Reserves and Cadets, instead of Vice Admiral Buck.
 
Riobeard said:
I do have a problem with the way in which some members of this forum choose to do so with generalities.

Couldn't agree more. Its fortunate that the moderators here are so good at not passing faults...  :salute:

:dontpanic:
 
Riobeard said:
...

Oh and BTW, Mr. Campell, respectfully sir, if you wish to voice your comments you might want to send them off to Major General H.M.Petras the current Chief or Reserves and Cadets, instead of Vice Admiral Buck.

I'm sure that's good and well intentioned advice but I don't know MGen Petras from Adam whereas Ron Buck and I go back a ways.  Any letter from me to MGen Petras would be dealt with by a clerk - maybe a two and half or three stripe clerk, but a clerk all the same.  A personal note to VAdm Buck, on the other hand, will be read and, maybe, even considered, by him, busy as he is.  At the very least he'll smile, shake his head and say, â Å“Some of these old retired guys have too much time on their hands.â ?
 
JavaMan said:
Well, thank you for the (indirect) reply...but I don't really buy that argument, though. Why is a separate uniform a "solid and rather important line?" Can you please clarify why? Isn't a set of officers bars enough of a distinction?

No.  How does Joe Public, tell the officers from the senior cadets?  Bars, crowns, and chevrons mean bugger all to anyone not familiar with the Service.  Age won't cut it; there are officer cadets as young as 18, and cadets as old.

JavaMan said:
I see this as a question of representation. IMO, A CIC officer has more in common with a cadet than any other type of CF member (regular, reserve, whatever), and their role in the CF, the training they're given, and the types of employment they are qualified to take.

Evidently you've never been a CIC officer.

JavaMan said:
It seems odd to me that the CIC does not have a uniform that reflects that association and these skillsets; if anything it distances them from the cadets they're trying to lead.

Yes, and rightly so.  When you supervise youth a professional distance is necessary; you can't be, or appear to be, "one of the guys".
 
2332Piper said:
But they don't wear the same uniform anymore. And its easy to mistake a CIC officer for someone else, the cap badge can be mistaken from a distance and most of the CIC folks I see don't wear 'CIC' slipons, they wear 'Canada' ones....I wonder why that is.

Because of people who might think less of them because of their branch; because of unprofessional attitude cases who will replace proper military courtesy with rude remarks; because the local supply outfit doesn't bother to stock the correct ones; or any combination of the above and other reasons.

2332Piper said:
You claim that you accept you position/role in the CF as a CIC officer, so why not accept that since you operate in such a different role, you should have a distinct uniform (like the Rangers) so that you can be identified as such.

First of all, I don't feel any desperate need to be identified as a CIC officer.   I'm a Canadian Forces officer, and that's all anyone I meet in the street needs to know.   Rangers don't have a distinct uniform to avoid being mistaken for infantrymen; they have a coloured sweatshirt to wear with their own clothing to identify them as Rangers vice civilians.   And I doubt that most of them wear that when they're watching over the North.

2332Piper said:
Navy officers war the same uniform as their sailors, army officers wear the same uniform as their troops, air force officers wear the same uniform as their troops, so why should the CIC not wear the same uniform as THEIR troops? Whats so special about the CIC? Soldiers can differentiate between themlseves and their officers and they wear the same uniform, if they can do it, I'm sure cadets can. An officer's bar is an officer's bar.

Naval officers and sailors belong to the same organisation.   CIC officers also belong to that organisation; cadets do not.   Cadets are not CF members.   They are civilian youth, clients of a programme offered by DND.
 
Edward Campbell, respectfully again sir, if you do have time on your hands as you indicated, I'm sure a Cadet Corp in your area could sure benefit from your experience. 
I'm sure Vice Admiral Buck would concur, as when he was posted to Pacific Command he was a very generous and outstanding contributor to and supporter of our Cadet program in Pacific region.  I had the personal honour of meeting him and speaking with him on a few occasions.
 
Neill McKay said:
No.   How does Joe Public, tell the officers from the senior cadets?   Bars, crowns, and chevrons mean bugger all to anyone not familiar with the Service.   Age won't cut it; there are officer cadets as young as 18, and cadets as old.

Evidently you've never been a CIC officer.

Yes, and rightly so.   When you supervise youth a professional distance is necessary; you can't be, or appear to be, "one of the guys".

- What does civvie street have to do with this?  It would follow then  that it must really be hard for civilians to tell the difference between an NCM and an officer in the CF, as they have the same uniforms. But then, does it really matter whether or not civilians can tell the difference? On another note, we have reservists as young as 16, and officers as young as 18. Hell, my section IC is a 2Lt who is the youngest soldier in the section at 21. Who cares? He holds a commission, and he's the guy in charge, despite the age difference. Full stop. Do you think a civilian would confuse the authority of a 21-year old reg force Lt standing next to a crusty old reg WO?   Would it be a problem for Junior CIC officers to correct anyone who mistakes them for another cadet?

- You're right, I have no CIC experience. How does this address my comment? I still believe that CIC's have more in common with cadets than the rest of the reserve. CIC's do not have the same training, share the same experiences, are not deployable, and have few of the skillsets that other reserve soldiers have. You do have training to supervise and manage a youth program. Is my information wrong? I'm asking these questions because I have little to no experience in this area.

- You're absolutely right about maintaining a distance. But isn't that why you're an officer? You can still wear the same uniform and maintain a professional distance.

- I'm not saying that the CIC shouldn't be in the CF, or hold a commission. I'm saying that they should wear a uniform that reflects those who they lead, and reflects their own training. It seems that your issue here is one of trying to gain the respect of other CF members through wearing the same uniform. In your responses to me, you claim that you require a separate uniform so that civilians can identify you, yet in some of your other comments you argue that even with a CF uniform "people...think less of them because of their branch; because of unprofessional attitude cases who will replace proper military courtesy with rude remarks; because the local supply outfit doesn't bother to stock the correct ones; or any combination of the above and other reasons." you're referring to other CF members, I take it?

Cheers,   :dontpanic:



 
JavaMan said:
- What does civvie street have to do with this?  It would follow then   that it must really be hard for civilians to tell the difference between an NCM and an officer in the CF, as they have the same uniforms. But then, does it really matter whether or not civilians can tell the difference?

Yes it does, when we're in public, or when a parent comes to the unit looking for someone in authority.

- You're right, I have no CIC experience. How does this address my comment? I still believe that CIC's have more in common with cadets than the rest of the reserve. CIC's do not have the same training, share the same experiences, are not deployable, and have few of the skillsets that other reserve soldiers have. You do have training to supervise and manage a youth program. Is my information wrong? I'm asking these questions because I have little to no experience in this area.

I've been both a naval reservist and a naval CIC officer.  In principle, there isn't a huge difference between running a naval reserve unit and a sea cadet corps.  In both cases, you're essentially running a school that teaches classes one evening a week and some weekends.  We are trained to organise training, to employ instructional techniques, to evaluate and develop instructors (cadets and officers both), to administer staff, to control supplies, to perform public relations tasks, and countless other little details that have to be looked after.

The cadets in a corps aren't a single hohomogeneous group; they have almost the same rank structure as the navy, and cadets of higher rank are increasingly responsible for the boots-on-the-deck running of the unit.  The biggest difference is that the "troops" are our clients rather than our employees -- a small distinction with teenagers, but significant none the less.  They're not accountable the way NCMs are (you can't charge a cadet for service offences, e.g.)  Nor do most of them have the level of maturity that most NCMs have, so leadership is a different challenge for the officers.

Another significant difference is the level of support received from outside of the unit, and the equipment held by the unit.  The cadet unit CO deals with a sponsoring body (usually the appropriate cadet League) to supply things DND does not (musical instruments, for example).  The sponsor usually isn't made up of military or ex-military people (but sometimes includes some), so a very different approach is necessary when interacting with them.

The last big difference is that most P. Res units control their building, while most cadet units are lodgers in someone else's building, sometimes a DND building and sometimes not.

And of course there are other, smaller, differences, but looking at the framework of it, the job isn't dramatically different.

It's quite wrong to say that CIC officers are more alike cadets than other service members; I'd argue that the difference between CIC officers and cadets is much more pronounced than that between a NAVRES officer and his NCMs.  The client/employee issue and the degree to which work can be delegated to the cadet or NCM are the two most defining differences.

- You're absolutely right about maintaining a distance. But isn't that why you're an officer? You can still wear the same uniform and maintain a professional distance.

Ah, but look at it though twelve-year-old recruit eyes, at the 18-year-old DPO and the 20-year-old Divisional Officer wearing the same uniform.  The distinction blurs quickly.

yet in some of your other comments you argue that even with a CF uniform "people...think less of them because of their branch; because of unprofessional attitude cases who will replace proper military courtesy with rude remarks; because the local supply outfit doesn't bother to stock the correct ones; or any combination of the above and other reasons." you're referring to other CF members, I take it?

Yes, and I've seen enough of that to know.
 
Ladies and Gents,

We're sending this to the corner for a time out. We'll revisit the situation in a few days. In the meantime, please DO NOT start anymore threads in this genre.

Thanks,
The Staff
 
CBH99 said:
Looking at this from a different perspective, and what I'm hoping is probably the case...

Perhaps this was a mere oversight.  Let's not be too busy to go on a witch-hunt & burn one of our own because the initial optics look bad. 

This could have been a simple matter of something showing up on someone's desk for "participating in event X" and someone saying "Yeah, sure."  Without knowing the historic and/or religious implications.


I highly doubt someone in the CF is so intensely interested in the India-Sikh nonsense that they DELIBERATELY chose to authorize this & "choose sides".  While that may be the end result in terms of optics, I doubt this was the intention.

Perhaps we can just call this a bad judgement call, a learning opportunity, and move on.  Unless something is done maliciously or with deliberately bad intentions, let's not pull out the pitch-forks just yet.

My issue with your stance on this is Jr Ranks get absolutely hammered by higher ups when they do something in which the “initial optics look bad.”  Because of that, Sr Officers should get the same if not harsher treatment when they do something with terrible optics as well. (Pipedream I know)
 
Bzzliteyr said:
@Jarhamar, @MilEmE09 I can't believe I have to cut and paste this here in regards to helmets.

C'mon, you can totally believe it  ;)

We wanted to show soldiers in FFO - we didn't.
We wanted to show off our excellent equipment - we didn't.

It's halftical.
 
Back
Top