Military Waste - Worthington Article

[kcdist]

Not sure of the rules for posting and article, so here is the link instead:

http://torontosun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2005/11/20/1314590.html

Another great military article by Worthington. He is one of the few journalists that can take shots at the military but still retain full credibility due to his prior service and support.

Worthington outlines the epidemic of waste in the CF, and focuses on but two examples: Too many lawyers and the value of FULLY subsidized advanced education.

During my service, perhaps my greatest peeve was the blatant and shameless financial waste that occurred within the military. There were so many examples that I was directly involved in, ranging from excessive time off for the support trades, to overstaffing of administrative posts, to the approximately $200 million spent annually on second language training.

Perhaps the worst example was at the conclusion of a tour in Croatia, having to hand over my sweat soaked, smelly rotten helmet and flak vest to the incoming RCR's, cause there weren't the resourses to buy new kit. Then arriving home to the announcement that over 1 Billion was to be spent to move 1 CMBG up to Edmonton because....because...because...oh yea!- the annual drive to Wainwright would be two hours shorter.

I'm sure anyone who has served for more than a year possesses a laundry list of examples of waste and redundancy. Oh, to be King for a year and have the power to cut and slash so that the waste could be re-directed to critical missions and war fighting resources.

It is morally wrong for Gen Hillier to plead for more funds when such questionable spending is occurring in his own backyard....

 

[Edward Campbell]

With all due respect to Worthington fans, in my opinion, after only 35+ years in the army, he is out to lunch on this one.

He seems locked, forever, in the mindset of a rifle platoon commander circa 1950.  It is great that he was one, honours to him for that.  It doesn't stand as any kind of qualification, though.

It may come as a shock to Worthington and many others but the military (rather than individuals) does benefit from having officers in some positions with advanced degrees, including Cambridge MAs in International Relations.  The CDS has to 'debate' with very senior officials in e.g. DFAIT (and within the Department â “ with ADM Policy) and the (CDS and his colleagues) need to come to the 'table' armed with opinions which will withstand severe intellectual scrutiny â “ the people with MAs from Cambridge do the CDS' background work for him.

Many (most?) PG programmes are, I think, in engineering and DND needs those people when the Department has to negotiate with contractors and vendors during equipment selection and procurement â “ unless, of course, Worthington and his admirers think that we should accept what the contractors/vendors say as gospel.

A smart army costs time and money â “ including time and money for graduate degrees during the prime of selected officers' careers.

Worthington is wrong.

 

[kcdist]

Edward,

You may have missed the point on this one. Issues were:

Why the increase in lawyers over the past few years? Does the military need one lawyer for every 312 regs?

What, if any, safeguards are in place to ensure military does not fully subsidize education only to have member bolt to private sector shortly thereafter?

What is the point of fully subsidizing education of senior members in the 'twilight' of their career, as opposed to focusing on members with decades left of service? How often is the former done verse the latter?

Should the benefiting member be required to sacrifice anything for the expensive civilian qualifications that will be added to his/her CV?

Bottom line: it the military getting good value for money in this one area? Furthermore, the primary question was:

The military budget has remained almost constant over the past decade despite the major reduction of personell. How come?

I submit that there is plenty of waste to cut...

 

[Edward Campbell]

He's still wrong; the Department of National Defence (which includes but is not limited to the military) needs X number of lawyers - that's hardly means that " Waste is endemic in the military."  Rubbish.

He says: " In civil litigation cases or international law, justice department lawyers take over. Military lawyers deal with military law and law of armed conflicts. Period."  That is (or was, in any event), I know demonstrably false.  While I served military lawyers acted, for the Department, the Canadian Forces and individual CF members, at e.g. public inquiries (Somalia, for example) and in international negotiations regarding, inter alia intellectual property rights.  Maybe that's all changed but I stand by my assertion: Worthington is wrong.

 

[S McKee]

I have to agree Edward. While I do like some of Worthington's views, on this matter he's out in left field. I don't know what he has against lawyers (but then again I suppose everyone has something against lawyers) but the military does need officers with advanced degrees. One only need look at the officer corps in the US where a Masters is pretty much the norm.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Well, I've said it before, and I'll say it again:   I have no time for Mr. Worthington's opinions on military subjects.   He appears (like some other "journalists" that he associates with) to have a political axe to grind against the current CF leadership and this comes through loud and clear in editorial pieces like this one.

It is a sad fact that lawyers are needed throughout the chain of command - even on operations.   They're intimately involved in operational decision-making, targeting and in advising commanders at all levels.   Add to this the reasons Edward has articulated and you need a fair number of lawyers rather quickly.

As for advanced degrees...   The comparison with the US is only partially valid:   American officers will often get "Masters" degrees by attending various types of staff college.   However, a great number have Masters and higher degrees from a surprising variety of institutions.   We are not the US, but having an educated senior officer corps can only be a good thing in my books.   The stereotype out there is that soldiers are uneducated, boorish linear thinkers and everything that we can do to counter that helps both the CF and the country.   An officer - especially at the general officer level - that can speak with both academic authority and actual experience is an invaluable asset.

 

[TAS278]

Lets not forget if we hope for an investigation or an audit, we could shed light where we don't want it. I would hate to see everyone go through an audit or public scrutiny

 

[GO!!!]

I think worthington has a point when it comes to the very senior officers that get their Master's and Doctrates paid for, then "pull pole" a year or two later.

This should not be viewed by the brass as some sort of "extension of benefits". We sign junior officers and NCMs to contracts of a certain length to ensure that the trg that is given is utilised before the mbr has an opportunity to quit. Given that a Private goes through a battle school course, (16,000 per man, pay and benefits in) and is immediately subjected to 30 months of mandatory service, why is a Major permitted to spend 300,000 on a post graduate degree and resign?

I agree with Worthington. Elsewhere on this site is a quote from a US full bird who states that the lack of a degree is'nt an issue until above the rank of company commander. So why not put Captains through the RMC degree, as a method of Career progression, and sign them to lengthy contracts? Repeat the process for Major, thus ensuring that 1) the high priced help sticks around and 2) that we are not wasting money on people who are intent on leaving.

Also, in the light that individual soldiers are restricted to a $5,000 one time reimbursed educational benefit (compared to the Montgomery GI bill in the US) the fact that some officers may take advantage of more than one hundred times this amount seems a little lop sided. How are you going to get any good CFR officers?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Just to clarify: a degree in law is not an advanced or post graduate degree. In some provinces, you do not need any previous university experience to get into law school. It's getting out that is the challenge.

Sarcasm on:
As a general rule, government lawyers are notoriously inefficient and obstructionist and as a result they are constantly ignored or over-ruled by people who actually have to make decisions. The only exception to that are JAG prosecutors with a good case to argue against a hapless defendant and naturally any other government lawyer that sits on a professional compensation committee.
Sarcasm off.

Ask Col Stogran about his fond memories and experiences valuing "The Operational Lawyer" - he's real pleasant on the subject.  :

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Just to clarify: a degree in law is not an advanced or post graduate degree. In some provinces, you do not need any previous university experience to get into law school. It's getting out that is the challenge.

Sarcasm on:
As a general rule, government lawyers are notoriously inefficient and obstructionist and as a result they are constantly ignored or over-ruled by people who actually have to make decisions. The only exception to that are JAG prosecutors with a good case to argue against a hapless defendant and naturally any other government lawyer that sits on a professional compensation committee.
Sarcasm off.

Ask Col Stogran about his fond memories and experiences valuing "The Operational Lawyer" - he's real pleasant on the subject.   :

Having said that, I currently have an absolute cracker-jack of a LEGAD - he is operationally focussed, proactive, and involved - so much so that he is quite useful as a senior watch keeper in a pinch.  He keeps the Comd and I on the straight and narrow, finds ways for us to do things (instead of reasons not to do things) and is handling some rather delicate negotiations with the IRoA on detainee policy in a straight forward and operationally focussed manner.

So, there are some good ones out there.

Dave

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I think worthington has a point when it comes to the very senior officers that get their Master's and Doctrates paid for, then "pull pole" a year or two later.

This should not be viewed by the brass as some sort of "extension of benefits". We sign junior officers and NCMs to contracts of a certain length to ensure that the trg that is given is utilised before the mbr has an opportunity to quit. Given that a Private goes through a battle school course, (16,000 per man, pay and benefits in) and is immediately subjected to 30 months of mandatory service, why is a Major permitted to spend 300,000 on a post graduate degree and resign?

I agree with Worthington. Elsewhere on this site is a quote from a US full bird who states that the lack of a degree is'nt an issue until above the rank of company commander. So why not put Captains through the RMC degree, as a method of Career progression, and sign them to lengthy contracts? Repeat the process for Major, thus ensuring that 1) the high priced help sticks around and 2) that we are not wasting money on people who are intent on leaving.

Also, in the light that individual soldiers are restricted to a $5,000 one time reimbursed educational benefit (compared to the Montgomery GI bill in the US) the fact that some officers may take advantage of more than one hundred times this amount seems a little lop sided. How are you going to get any good CFR officers?

Frankly, I'm not sure that such rampant abuse of the system routinely happens.  In the Army, I can think of one example where an officer was paid to attend university then "retired" on graduation, and his act only reinforced my view of him (in other words, he was a total waste of rations).

Officers are (now) required to have an undergraduate degree, so there isn't any need to put Captains through an RMC degree program.  Further, I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from for what a post-graduate degree costs.  A typical doctorate is about $40000 - depending where you go.

Bear in mind that there are comparatively few officers who are given the "golden" opportunity to complete a post-grad degree full time.  A large number have completed Master's or MBAs while holding down some pretty heavy jobs (yes, me included) and very few are given a shot at a doctorate.

Finally, the $5000 limit you quote is only part of the equation.  According to ADM (HR-MIL) Instruction 17-04 (Education Reimbursement for the Regular Force):

5. Members may access funding through this program for high school and community college diplomas, university degrees, or professional certification. Members who have already completed a Baccalaureate degree will be considered for funding under this program for courses that may be credited toward a Master's degree, or for courses required for professional certification, or for courses at the baccalaureate level to update skills and knowledge when these courses are in the interest of the CF. CDA may approve courses for a second Baccalaureate degree, or for a second Master's degree, or for a PhD, when to do so is deemed to be "in the interests of the CF."

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

6. Eligible members may be reimbursed 100% of education expenses, except for those items identified at para 3d (6) and (10), for successfully completed courses approved through the ILP process.

Note that this doesn't apply only to officers.  The proviso is, of course, that any program needs to be approved and "in the interests of the CF".  If your paperwork is lined up, there are a lot of benefits out there - for all rank levels.
Again, I don't think this is a bad thing.

 

[Infanteer]

Having an educated officer Corps is important - Enfield (a member here) had a professor at university that worked extensively with the US Executive Branch.  This guy was an SME on US Government.  He said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the most impressive group of US government people he would deal with was the US Air Force - technically competent, highly educated, focused on a strategic mission, and competent with decision-making.  If we want our Senior Officer's to be taken seriously in the halls of governance when they provide their advice to our elected officials.  The CFC is highly praised for its ability to do this (read the opening to Thomas Hammes' The Sling and the Stone) - wander over and have a look at the AMSC and the NSSC and you'll see the value that comes out of this.

As for lawyers, PPCLI Guy's post is reassuring - JAG's need to be force multipliers.  If anyone wants to see Colonel Stogran's views, you don't need to ask him - just look near the end of his CAJ article:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_07/iss_3/CAJ_vol7.3_04_e.pdf

 

[Cloud Cover]

As for lawyers, PPCLI Guy's post is reassuring - JAG's need to be force multipliers.   If anyone wants to see Colonel Stogran's views, you don't need to ask him - just look near the end of his CAJ article:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_07/iss_3/CAJ_vol7.3_04_e.pdf

Still- I think you should ask him if you have the chance. The sides of his forehead throb and then he gets real pleasant and all quiet with you. Thats when the hair on the back of your neck stands up and you start wishing you opted for Bay street.

 

[GO!!!]

Officers are (now) required to have an undergraduate degree, so there isn't any need to put Captains through an RMC degree program.  Further, I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from for what a post-graduate degree costs.  A typical doctorate is about $40000 - depending where you go.

I got my numbers from the article,  I am well aware of the costs of a graduate degree, so how did someone manage to claim 300 000?
I'm arguing the need for junior officers to have a degree at all - until they are to be given the opportunity to lead a Coy plus.

Finally, the $5000 limit you quote is only part of the equation.  According to ADM (HR-MIL) Instruction 17-04 (Education Reimbursement for the Regular Force):

Yes, but that is a lifetime allowance, and it stops after you complete your undergrad. Think - 90 credit hrs required to complete a Bachelor's degree.

115$ per credit hour + 150$ per class of books

Min 90 Credit hours = $10350
Min 15 courses (books) = $2250

This is assuming one is taking an arts degree, and requires no special equipment, he can pull it off for $12600.

source http://www.umanitoba.ca/distance/guide/fees/tuition_fees.shtml

So if you were lucky, you might get a third of the way through your degree. I also used the most conservative amounts, and assumed the person in question was'nt trying for an honors degree.

The 5K is not even close to enough to get a soldier through a degree, so while you may be re - imbursed for 100% of eligible expenses, it is to a career maximum of five thousand dollars, which is also a taxable benfit.

I don't think that this is a bad thing either, but it seems to discourage troops from pursuing higher education while still in the military, and preventing CFRs. Especially when compared to the Montgomery GI Bill in the US, it is a pretty paltry sum. Even militia soldiers get more, although it is over a longer time period. (8 thousand over 4 years)

For Comparison, here are the GI bill rates http://www.gibill.va.gov/Training/Info/Text/Active/Active_Duty_GI_Bill_Payments.html

 

[Edward Campbell]

I got my numbers from the article,  I am well aware of the costs of a graduate degree, so how did someone manage to claim 300 000?
...

I think one gets $300,000 when you add together all the costs of a degree at e.g. Cambridge including:

"¢ the member's salary for two or three years;

"¢ tuition, books and fees;

"¢ overseas allowance;

"¢ housing allowance in the UK for a large family - maybe not the most expensive place in the world to live but way, way, way above Ottawa; and

"¢ airfares, etc.

Of course maybe we don't need that sort of skill/knowledge set at all, or maybe a degree from Brock is good enough, perhaps Cambridge and all that intellectual challenge and stimulation is overkill.

I stick by my original assessment: Worthington  is full if it, on this issue, anyway.

 

[Infanteer]

I don't think that this is a bad thing either, but it seems to discourage troops from pursuing higher education while still in the military, and preventing CFRs. Especially when compared to the Montgomery GI Bill in the US, it is a pretty paltry sum.

I agree - I've stated before that Canada needs a "GI Bill" to encourage todays youth that service in the CF is worthwhile.  Is it bribing people for a supply of short-timers?  Sure, but we could use more boots on Basic Engagements and any extra exposure to mainstream Canada is good.

Even militia soldiers get more, although it is over a longer time period. (8 thousand over 4 years)

I think that program got axed - it certainly wasn't a good one.  I applied the first year and got some money (not what I was eligible and applied for); I applied the second year and never got any response.  I never even bothered to apply the third year.  Too much red tape.  I heard that it was discontinued.

 

[stukirkpatrick]

I think that program got axed - it certainly wasn't a good one.  I applied the first year and got some money (not what I was eligible and applied for); I applied the second year and never got any response.  I never even bothered to apply the third year.  Too much red tape.  I heard that it was discontinued.

The original version was a trial program, which ended earlier this year.  It came down the chain that the program has been reconstituted, and I plan to apply at the end of my third and fourth years at school.  Apparently if you were awarded a scholarship or bursary it was subtracted from the maximum ammount you could be reimbursed, hence I didnt not attempt to apply during the first two years.

 

[COBRA-6]

I agree - I've stated before that Canada needs a "GI Bill" to encourage todays youth that service in the CF is worthwhile.  Is it bribing people for a supply of short-timers?  Sure, but we could use more boots on Basic Engagements and any extra exposure to mainstream Canada is good.

I think that program got axed - it certainly wasn't a good one.  I applied the first year and got some money (not what I was eligible and applied for); I applied the second year and never got any response.  I never even bothered to apply the third year.  Too much red tape.  I heard that it was discontinued.

It was a trial, then made permanent. Not sure why you had so much admin problems though Infanteer, it went smooth for me. One form initialy to enrole in the program, then one at the end of each academic year to claim the $2k. There's also a clause that if you go NES over the year you don't get anything. I think it's a great program and an excellent recruiting tool. But I also agree there should be a "GI Bill" type program for the reg force.

 

[garb811]

The 5K is not even close to enough to get a soldier through a degree, so while you may be re - imbursed for 100% of eligible expenses, it is to a career maximum of five thousand dollars, which is also a taxable benfit.

I don't think that this is a bad thing either, but it seems to discourage troops from pursuing higher education while still in the military, and preventing CFRs. Especially when compared to the Montgomery GI Bill in the US, it is a pretty paltry sum. Even militia soldiers get more, although it is over a longer time period. (8 thousand over 4 years)

The $5000 limit is on CBI 210.802 (Skills Completion Program - Regular Force) and applies to programs which upgrade your skills or provide you other skills in preparation for your second career.

If you are going for an initial BA then ADM (HR-MIL) Instruction 17-04 (Education Reimbursement for the Regular Force) is the policy.   This applies equally to Reg Force officers and NCMs, has no pre-set funding cap and is non-taxable, as evidenced by the claims I have finalized.   When I first did my ILP for a BA via distance I really didn't have a clue as to how much it would cost me due to the variables in books etc so my SWAG was $10,000 over 5 years and it was approved without anyone blinking an eye.

EDIT:  Re-reading the policy it looks like it would even be possible for a NCM to do part-time Post Grad and be reimbursed...

 

[GO!!!]

The $5000 limit is on CBI 210.802 (Skills Completion Program - Regular Force) and applies to programs which upgrade your skills or provide you other skills in preparation for your second career.

If you are going for an initial BA then ADM (HR-MIL) Instruction 17-04 (Education Reimbursement for the Regular Force) is the policy.   This applies equally to Reg Force officers and NCMs, has no pre-set funding cap and is non-taxable, as evidenced by the claims I have finalized.   When I first did my ILP for a BA via distance I really didn't have a clue as to how much it would cost me due to the variables in books etc so my SWAG was $10,000 over 5 years and it was approved without anyone blinking an eye.

EDIT:   Re-reading the policy it looks like it would even be possible for a NCM to do part-time Post Grad and be reimbursed...

I'm going to have a chat with the PSO's office regarding the taxable status and the 5K ceiling- I've paid taxes on the whole thing and have been told that I've taken advantage of all the monies allowed!!

It states elsewhere in the reimbursement policy that NCMs are cut off after an initial Bachelors or Certificate, unless it is "in the interests of the CF" for an NCM to have a Masters, a second degree, or a certificate, in addition to the first one. Possible...

Lends a new meaning to the term "strategic Cpl" - Cpls with Master's as riflemen!