PDA

View Full Version : XO-CMC fired over toilet training



BURAWSKI
12-21-2013, 12:39 AM
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20131220/NEWS/312200021/XO-CMC-fired-over-toilet-hazing


I don't agree with this. Sure, fire the XO and CMC, but don't fire the CO because he never was aware and never was told about it? It doesn't make a difference whether the CO was aware or not, he is still responsible. You can't delegate responsibility. He should have known about it - apparently a number of senior enlisted and officers were aware. Hey, I'm not saying don't punish the XO-CMC, but the CO should be held accountable, regardless of whether he knew about it or not. It's called Command Responsibility; you don't get a free pass on that one I'm afraid. I don't understand why the XO-CMC would be held accountable, and not the CO.

imported_WINTHORP1
12-21-2013, 01:19 AM
I personally don't believe this is hazing. It is more of a punishment and a message to others not to use toilets that are not working. I have run into that problem several times in my career, and I would have loved to do this to those people. Maybe next time the others in birthing will police each other. I am confused how the CO didn't know about this....

Greg
12-21-2013, 01:43 AM
"A shipboard leader discovered human waste in two heads and ordered all 19 female sailors who live in the berthings to clean them out."

Why all nineteen? That's a boot camp move. If this was the first incident of this type then I would have questions, and I would start at the bottom.

BURAWSKI
12-21-2013, 02:43 AM
I personally don't believe this is hazing. It is more of a punishment and a message to others not to use toilets that are not working. I have run into that problem several times in my career, and I would have loved to do this to those people. Maybe next time the others in birthing will police each other. I am confused how the CO didn't know about this....

I think the Navy is saying it was hazing because they were forced to march in formation, in public, and were humiliated because they had to carry excrement in bags. It was the humiliation that is being used as the reason (and probably someone who complained to the IG). Ok, so they were humiliated (and had their feelings hurt). Big deal. You can't start firing people every time someone feels they were treated unfairly, humiliated or hazed. It looks like firing is the first and only option. Was there no other way to deal with this? And I still think that the CO has some answering to do. It still happened on his watch.

imported_WINTHORP1
12-21-2013, 02:53 AM
So the people who live in the birthing, who couldn't regulate themselves were forced to clean up their birthing's mess, and it hurt there feelings, so we call it hazing? Wow, the next thing you know, nursery rhymes will be hazing.......oh crap.

Rusty Jones
12-21-2013, 10:15 PM
I would think that having them clean up their mess would be enough. When administering corrective action, you have to be professional about it.

garhkal
12-22-2013, 03:41 AM
I personally don't believe this is hazing. It is more of a punishment and a message to others not to use toilets that are not working. I have run into that problem several times in my career, and I would have loved to do this to those people. Maybe next time the others in birthing will police each other. I am confused how the CO didn't know about this....

This sounds exactly like what EMI is supposed to be, corrective action designed around the mistake that prompted EMI to be awarded..

Stalwart
12-22-2013, 09:59 AM
It's called Command Responsibility; you don't get a free pass on that one I'm afraid. I don't understand why the XO-CMC would be held accountable, and not the CO.

I don't disagree. I got the impression that the CMC & XO actively tried to keep the information from the CO, which may have influenced the decision to not relieve the CO as well. I would think that the CMC and XO were relieved not so much as a result of the hazing taking place, but for keeping the information from the CO -- the one ultimately responsible for everything on the ship.

As far as the actual punishment, it probably could have been handled better. They had all already cleaned the head (good EMI). Marching the whole berthing space down the pier, in formation, carrying the bags was a bit much and turned EMI into a group shaming down the pier.

imported_WINTHORP1
12-23-2013, 04:41 AM
I really don't see how you can keep this from the CO. It's not like you took them to shaft alley and "counseled" them. They were marched in formation down the pier. That sort of thing doesn't normally happen. I think the CO did know, but didn't say anything until someone cried about it. Now it's the "I didn't know" defense. That kind of defense works all the time or none of the time, not when it's convenient.

Chief Bosun
12-24-2013, 06:36 PM
Concur, the CO is ultimately responsible for what happens. However, in this case it appears there was a concerted attempt to keep the incident from them, which mitigated the situation. I would not be surprised, though, if the CO was counseled in private about the issue. I find it a little difficult to swallow that he did not at least hear RUMINT regarding this situation.

19 female Sailors were ordered to clean up the mess without proper protective gear. Agree, that was clearly wrong. I don't have an issue with them cleaning the mess, just the fact that they did not have the proper gear to do so.

13 were marched to the end of the pier to dispose of the sewage. Why only 13, instead of the full complement involved? Why have them in formation? I would have thought the one-sided conversation the person ordering them to clean the mess up had with them, in addition to them cleaning it up, would have sufficed. There was no need to call public attention to the issue.

forcedj
12-29-2013, 04:28 PM
This is kind of ironic...military leaders being punished for making their military troops march -- something the military has done forever. What next...punishing them for fighting wars? And it sounds like those who used the tagged out toilets are barely being punished, if at all. And maybe the ship's 3M coordinator ought to be punished too because of poor training. Clearly those sailors don't know that tagged out equipment is not to be operated for danger of injuring or killing someone.

Dan

BURAWSKI
12-29-2013, 06:52 PM
This is kind of ironic...military leaders being punished for making their military troops march -- something the military has done forever. What next...punishing them for fighting wars? And it sounds like those who used the tagged out toilets are barely being punished, if at all. And maybe the ship's 3M coordinator ought to be punished too because of poor training. Clearly those sailors don't know that tagged out equipment is not to be operated for danger of injuring or killing someone.

Dan

Well this seems similar to the CMC being fired for "assault" on a seaman. Doesn't the Navy realize that these actions undermine the authority of officers and senior enlisted? All these actions are what I would call last resort decisions, without looking at alternative ways of handling the situation, all which reflect the zero-tolerance mentality. It causes a hesitancy to take corrective action for fear that some disgruntled subordinate will cry foul.

forcedj
12-30-2013, 03:37 AM
I'm not saying this situation was handled correctly from the get go. Clearly it could have been handled better. But, to me, the fact that the superiors were 'fired' for making the sailors 'march' (that's what the article said)...and not because those sailors were made to carry bags of human excrement is ridiculous. When in history has a military or its members NOT marched? I guess forcing a troop to carry their own excrement is OK...but forcing them to march isn't. And the failure of recognizing longstanding, always-driven-home 3M practices was almost completely disregarded. Those sailors should be held accountable for operating tagged out equipment. I'm not saying the superiors and supervisors should get off without some punishment. But the consequences come down to a couple of probably otherwise good sailors...the XO and the CMC...now having tarnished careers. In my opinion the knee-jerk reaction was completely wrong. It was a knee jerk and shouldn't have been. But, unfortunately there's no instant replay.

Dan

imnohero
12-30-2013, 03:58 AM
A 2 month investigation is hardly "knee-jerk" reaction. The two people's "firing" was primarily for concealing the incident and conspiring to conceal it from the ships Captain. Which is rather more serious than the hazing incident itself, it seems to me.

BURAWSKI
12-30-2013, 04:36 AM
The article may have implied that but didn't exactly say so. From what I read in the article the firings happened because the incident was considered to be "hazing" (i.e, the forced march on the pier carrying human waste in bags) and that the CO was never aware of it (so he says) because the CMC and XO did not brief him. That could have occurred from the CMC and XO concealing the incident, or it could have been as simple as them not saying anything, and the CO not asking any questions. This I might add, after several senior enlisted and commissioned officers witnessed the incident. So, there were several crew members who knew about this. Somebody complained. Hey, but if you feel it was a just action by the Navy, have at it. I'm just going by what I read. BTW, I think the Navy has hit about rock bottom on the leadership scale. Today, the United States Navy is a disgrace and embarrassment of which I am actually ashamed to be associated with.

B. M. BURAWSKI

BURAWSKI
12-30-2013, 04:36 AM
The article may have implied that but didn't exactly say so. From what I read in the article the firings happened because the CO was never aware of it (so he says). That could have occurred from the CMC and XO concealing the incident or it could have been as simple as them not saying anything and the CO not asking any questions. This I might add, after several senior enlisted and commissioned officers witnessed the incident. Hey, but if you feel it was a just action by the Navy, have at it. I'm just going by what I read. BTW, I think the Navy has hit about rock bottom on the leadership scale. Today, the United States Navy is a disgrace and embarrassment of which I am actually ashamed to be associated with.

B. M. BURAWSKI
Chief Yeoman, U.S. Navy (Ret.)

Vrake
12-30-2013, 11:12 AM
The article may have implied that but didn't exactly say so. From what I read in the article the firings happened because the CO was never aware of it (so he says). That could have occurred from the CMC and XO concealing the incident or it could have been as simple as them not saying anything and the CO not asking any questions. This I might add, after several senior enlisted and commissioned officers witnessed the incident. Hey, but if you feel it was a just action by the Navy, have at it. I'm just going by what I read. BTW, I think the Navy has hit about rock bottom on the leadership scale. Today, the United States Navy is a disgrace and embarrassment of which I am actually ashamed to be associated with.

B. M. BURAWSKI
Chief Yeoman, U.S. Navy (Ret.)

I am right there with you brother. I just retired and don't want to be around the "new" mess as much. CMCs getting fired is kind of a new trend (3-4 years) for speaking their mind or any other excuse they can find to weed out the old school CMCs. If you don't toe the party line they end your career and bring in the next "yes man" watering down the mess even more. It started awhile ago but this MCPOON is the hatchetman.

CaliMC
12-30-2013, 08:10 PM
Agree completely. It began with formation of the "Triad". CMCs, previously the crew's advocate to the CO, have evolved into being the CO's mole within the CPO Mess and the crew. The line between the CPO Mess and the Wardroom has become blurred, too many CMC's develop a personal "relationship" with the CO and XO, thereby losing any legitimate objectivity and ability to be constructively critical of the CO when necessary.

Salty Old Dog
01-03-2014, 06:07 PM
Reminds me of just about EVERY general quarters drill we had on my carrier, when they would shut the valves going to the CHT tanks, but the damn Flight Deck Skittles who worked the back watch wouldn't care, and continue to flush their commodes. Since our heads were on the 2nd deck, their waste would flow down the pipes, hit that shut valve, then backflow through our commodes, and flood the head with 6-8 inches of brown water and floaters.

EVERY. DAMN. GQ.

Didn't matter that they'd been told countless times they weren't supposed to use the heads during GQ's. They were Skittles, and no one could tell them what to do. Besides, they were attached air wing, and didn't care about the ship or the crew.

Just another reason to hate them damn Skittles!! :cussing: