HMCS Saskatoon - drug use trials

[Disenchantedsailor]

If anytihng he did the opposite of #2 by contacting NIS

 

[geo]

If anytihng he did the opposite of #2 by contacting NIS

yeah - but wouldn't that be like closing the barn door AFTER the horses have bolted?
where was the situational awareness of the Ship's company's leaders?
despite the drugs, this couldn't have been a happy ship (pun intended)
these are people who have given up any and all aspects of their professionalism and have become - rank amateurs

 

[navymich]

Lt Cdr White was recently promoted... out of his position as CO of the Saskatoon.
Time will tell if he is ever given command of another ship.
While the Navy has not found him guilty, that does not mean they have found him to be a good and effective CO.
Time will tell, time will tell. ???

Cdr White is currently the CO of HMCS Oriole.

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

yeah - but wouldn't that be like closing the barn door AFTER the horses have bolted?
where was the situational awareness of the Ship's company's leaders?
despite the drugs, this couldn't have been a happy ship (pun intended)
these are people who have given up any and all aspects of their professionalism and have become - rank amateurs

Indeed, but better than turning a blind eye, the key thing to remember is the ships coxn, the link between the NCM's and Command was as deep as the rest of them. Also just because one killick on his way out the door says 1/3 of the ships coy were actively using coke doesn't actually mean they were. There was an indepth investigation and only 4 charges were laid and made it to trial. The result of investigation just doesn't back up the young man's claim.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Cdr White is currently the CO of HMCS Oriole.

And HMCS Oriole is our sail training vessel which trains young RMC officers and some other trades such as Bosn's who are just starting off in the outfit. I think the Admiral is showing that he has confidence in this man's ability to command and shape young hearts and minds.

There seems to be a lot of comments in the negative from folks who haven't served in the Senior Service which tend to be making the insinuation that the Navy is sweeping this under the carpet by not disciplining the Captain. I remember when I was in Petawawa in the early 90's and there was a huge drug bust in the shacks....I remember the CO of that regiment went on to be a General Officer. Those folks in shacks were the equivalent of "living aboard," unlike the folks on the MCDV who lived ashore in Nellies Block or on the economy. The CO and senior NCOs at the time took disciplinary action against the malefactors and life went on. That's why we have Edmonton and summary trials....why the dogpile on a senior Navy Officer folks??

 

[mudrecceman]

I guess the point I am trying to make here, well there are actually 2 of them.

1) While he, like any CO, is responsible for the "unit" under his/her command, there is the reality that they can't be responsible for each individual actions that are under their command when they "aren't on duty/at work/whatever you want to call it".  If this was the case, how many people get charged for assault, DUI, domestic violence, etc etc, in the CF per year...man would we ever be changing COs alot!

2) The only "fact" we know about what the Captain did/did not know for "however long" is that we don't actually know those facts.

My 2 bones.  Not the prosecution, not the defence, I am just sitting in the galley but...its believeable that the CO had it all "hidden" from him...and then when he got whiff of "something" and called in the guns, it was one of those big-*** waves at the beach...there is nothing you can do, its gonna go over your head...you start hoping it won't drag you back out with it....

 

[SeaDog]

Just to interject my take on this subject; take it, leave it or comment at will...
a)  The cox'n is traditionally the ears and eyes of the CO on a ship with regards to the morale, conduct and content/discontent of the crew.  The CO doesn't isn't mess-mates with his sailors  and therefore although he sees a great deal, and can form his own opinions on a great many things regarding his crew, it is generally the Cox'n he relies upon for advice et cetera with regards to these issues.  And rightfully so.  In any other circumstance we would be criticizing a CO who didn't have a healthy respect for the opinion of the senior enlisted man (for the types in green, that would be similar to a CO who didn't listen to the RSM I suppose.)  When said individual is PART of the problem it exposes a fundemental flaw in the CofC.  As Ad Hoc Signo iterated, there seems to be a lot of undue insuation as to the capacity and responsibility of LCdr White.
b) As an officer I've had to deal with a similar circumstance with one of my own sailors in my division and the matter is never cut and dry.  Although we eventually unmasked the issue, it was clouded behind a great many things...to make a long story short after months of trying to help my member with financial issues, my divisional team eventually discovered the true nature of the problem - his unfortunate addiction.  In subsequent investigations it was revealed that a not a small number of people were aware...but none came to the CofC to inform us of the true nature of the problem as we went through the many processes of arranging free financial counselling etc.  The member had a clean service record and excellent performance at work.  However his life "off-base" only came to our attention due to the eventual financial stress it placed him under.  Moral of the story is that these problems are not always evident to those in charge, control and command when on-job performance is good and those around turn a blind eye.
c) As for 1/3 of the ship's company being addicts - will believe that when I see the NIS report.  The testimony of an unfortunate addict, under the dark cloud of court-martial...well, I'm afraid that is not a stamped, sealed and delivered truth that I would swallow immediately.

And finally,
d)  What would you have done as CO if someone had confided in you that not only junior, but the highest level of command (in the Navy the Cox'n is considered part of the command triangle..) on your vessel were involved in alleged narcotic trafficing and abuse?  It must have taken alot for that CO to have swallowed the incredulous belief that this was not only possible, but that perhaps I should call for outside help.  It takes a brave commander to realize that when there is a problem beyond my scope I have to swallow my pride (and perhaps my future command prospects) and ask for help...

Just a few things to think about.  As said, fire at will lads if you disagree.  It's through dialogue like this that problems are fixed and new ideas introduced...

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

You would be surprised what can be kept from a CO if the wardroom or senior ncms do not want to bring it to the COs attention. Does the CO of each regiment know if Pte Bloggins is boinking so and so or Mcpl Ahole beats his wife? Sail sometime before you condemn....

Well said Seadog.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

You would be surprised what can be kept from a CO if the wardroom or senior ncms do not want to bring it to the COs attention. Does the CO of each regiment know if Pte Bloggins is boinking so and so or Mcpl Ahole beats his wife? Sail sometime before you condemn....

Well said Seadog.

+1 to Seadog and Ex-Dragoon....not only does the CO not know....he is relying on his senior NCOs and Officers to look after discipline at the lowest level. If it comes to him it is extremely serious and he deals with it, as apparently Cdr White did. How could he have speculated in his wildest dreams that the Coxn (the RSM equivalent) was breaching the trust that the Navy and the CF had placed in him? From the evidence we have discussed here the Coxn should be busted down and his Warrant repealed...he is unworthy of the position of trust that said Warrant entrusts him with.

 

[KevinB]

I'm sorry - If this is indeed 1/3 of the crew, then the commander was derelict in his duties, and that is the price of command.
 

In June 2004, he was appointed Commanding Officer of HMCS Edmonton.  In December of that year, he assumed command of HMCS Saskatoon when the ship’s company of HMCS Edmonton transferred to HMCS Saskatoon. 

    He assumed command of HMCS Oriole in June 2006

2 years. 

 

[navymich]

I'm sorry - If this is indeed 1/3 of the crew, then the commander was derelict in his duties, and that is the price of command.
 

2 years. 

I6, just trying to follow your thinking.  Are you saying that if 1/3 of his crew was actually involved in the situation in some aspect, then over the 2 year span that he was in command, the CO should have noticed something/anything?

 

[pbi]

Never mind the drug use "ashore" or wherever it was. The CPO who was brought in to clean things up stated very clearly that the ship, as a military unit, was in very bad shape. Now, I've been around the block at least once and I know damned well that if the troops or the NCOs don't want the "sir" to know something, chances are that he won't know. I also understand that Reservists, once off duty and off base, are under virtually no control by the Code of Service Discipline. I get all that.

But the functional state of a military unit, whether it be a ship, a flying sqn or an infantry battalion, can't be hidden. It's evident, and it very clearly and indisputably IS the responsibility of the CO. So, how do we reconcile that with this fellow's promotion?

Cheers

 

[KevinB]

In the same way that a Pl Comd or a Pl WO may miss one or two troops in their Pl using drugs "recreationally", a small percentage of that ship could be understood -- heck the Canadian populace of which the CF does reflect has a drug problem.  However at the extent it is claimed to be, that does seem odd to miss.

  pbi - to a point, but I fully beleive that some will while bowing to peer pressure not to out those involved officially would drop the occassional hint to some of the unaffected Chain of Command.

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

We have to keep in mind that this is an allegation made after an NIS investigation by a former killick trying to save his own arse, you know that whole spreading the blame game alot of folks in the Navy (based on 7 years experience as a sailor myself) seem to be adept at. His allegation may be no more than that an attempt to make everybody pay for his mistakes.

 

[mudrecceman]

Never mind the drug use "ashore" or wherever it was. The CPO who was brought in to clean things up stated very clearly that the ship, as a military unit, was in very bad shape.

IMHO,he said that, for 2 reasons.  1, it probably WAS in very bad shape.  Let's say a Coy or Sqn had this fall down around them, how would morale and mlitary cohesiveness be affected from the newest Trooper right on up to the OC?  2, if the CPO said "oh things seem fine", how would that be taken, being there was a problem with drugs, and it went up as far as the Cox'n?  You would think he would almost HAVE to say it was in bad shape, to give it all the more "room to improve".  "Yes things were horrible but are MUCH better now".  It sounds better and appeases more people?  Maybe its way too late for my brain to be thinking about this.  ;D

Now, I've been around the block at least once and I know damned well that if the troops or the NCOs don't want the "sir" to know something, chances are that he won't know. I also understand that Reservists, once off duty and off base, are under virtually no control by the Code of Service Discipline. I get all that.

Unless they are on Class B or C Service, in which case the CSD applies as it does to the Reg Force...24/7.  AFAIK, most of the positions on the MCDVs are or were Class C.

But the functional state of a military unit, whether it be a ship, a flying sqn or an infantry battalion, can't be hidden. It's evident, and it very clearly and indisputably IS the responsibility of the CO. So, how do we reconcile that with this fellow's promotion?

Cheers

That is a good question.  I haven't sailed or been in the Navy...I just am not convinced that the Captain knew about the problem and called in the NIS when he figured the cat was outta the bag.

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

Unless they are on Class B or C Service, in which case the CSD applies as it does to the Reg Force...24/7.  AFAIK, most of the positions on the MCDVs are or were Class C.

The "core" crew positions are Cl C, the equiv of what the reg force crew on the pig boats was, the remainder are Cl B (this may have changed but thats the way it was a few years back)

 

[navymich]

The "core" crew positions are Cl C, the equiv of what the reg force crew on the pig boats was, the remainder are Cl B (this may have changed but thats the way it was a few years back)

That is correct.  All core crew members are Class 'C'.  As well, there are also 2 reg force members on board.  The remainder are Class B.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

I'm sorry - If this is indeed 1/3 of the crew, then the commander was derelict in his duties, and that is the price of command.
 

2 years. 

You weren't there and it has not been proven that it was 1/3 of the crew...the senoir leadership has given him command of another important Naval asset, I guess people at a higher pay grade and with a lot more information than you disagree. :

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I6 and PBI sorry guys but you're off the bat... you definitely can't liken the naval hierarchy to the way the infantry runs things. Command hierarchies fail sometimes, this time it failed the navy, I am not one for tradition but the Naval Divisional system works. I echo everyone else IMO, that if the CO was not informed then how can he be held accountable.

 

[geo]

I'm with pbi & I6 on this.
Based on the incoming coxn's comments, the ship company was non-functional as a military vessel.
Even if the CO was depending on his Coxn & his NCOs to keep him posted, he had to see the efficiency of his ship go down the tubes & THERE he shoulda been asking some questions.