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

Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

cavalryman

Full Member
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
18
Points
230
On the topic of having civilians take over the DND (I thought they had already?), I had mulled this idea over before but never posted about it, likely cause honestly I'm pretty much done thinking about the CAF and it's problems, I have few working brain cells left and need to hold onto them.

But, one of the reasons a corporation has a Board of Directors is to think about vision, the strategy, culture, etc. The CEO implements the Board's direction and runs the corporation on a full-time basis, dealing with present day issues, etc., but the Board does the job of thinking bigger and better. The size of the board varies but 7 to 15 members is pretty common. The board also holds the C-suite executives accountable.

I think the CAF could benefit from implementing such an idea. Being on a board is generally not a full-time job, and you can be member of a board for a long period of time (something that the CAF suffers from is the "only 2 years in any position" and so you've got no ability to implement any substantial changes in such a short amount of time).

It also allows you bring in outside perspectives and expertise. So for example, a board for the CAF could have members from the private sector on it, and benefit from that perspective and expertise, but also have uniformed members who of course, bring the perspective of the CAF and what it means to serve with unlimited liability, etc., stuff that the private sector CEO isn't going to understand.

The board also does things like develops performance measures which align with the vision and strategy, and help steer the C-suite executives, another thing we sorely lack.

We could have a board that is half-serving members, and half-civilian. The serving members half would obviously have representation from the different elements, and even different ranks (again, something we sorely lack... does anybody really think the CAF CWO has a f**king clue what it's like to be a Corporal in today's CAF?).

This may be worth a thread split... or not since it's a just a fantasy, but thought experiments can be fun.
So, something like a CAF Senate, a sort of Regimental Senate on steroids?

Sorry. Just kidding. But that was my first thought. All former CDS, except those under investigation (to keep numbers down) sit on this BoD. Add a few honoraries for the civilian half and voila. Done.

Or not.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
106
Points
710
So, something like a CAF Senate, a sort of Regimental Senate on steroids?

Sorry. Just kidding. But that was my first thought. All former CDS, except those under investigation (to keep numbers down) sit on this BoD. Add a few honoraries for the civilian half and voila. Done.

Or not.

Yes, unfortunately that's exactly what the CAF would do if left to their own devices, and why it should not be left up to the CAF to create it.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
244
Points
710
On the topic of having civilians take over the DND (I thought they had already?), I had mulled this idea over before but never posted about it, likely cause honestly I'm pretty much done thinking about the CAF and it's problems, I have few working brain cells left and need to hold onto them.

But, one of the reasons a corporation has a Board of Directors is to think about vision, the strategy, culture, etc. The CEO implements the Board's direction and runs the corporation on a full-time basis, dealing with present day issues, etc., but the Board does the job of thinking bigger and better. The size of the board varies but 7 to 15 members is pretty common. The board also holds the C-suite executives accountable.

I think the CAF could benefit from implementing such an idea. Being on a board is generally not a full-time job, and you can be member of a board for a long period of time (something that the CAF suffers from is the "only 2 years in any position" and so you've got no ability to implement any substantial changes in such a short amount of time).

It also allows you bring in outside perspectives and expertise. So for example, a board for the CAF could have members from the private sector on it, and benefit from that perspective and expertise, but also have uniformed members who of course, bring the perspective of the CAF and what it means to serve with unlimited liability, etc., stuff that the private sector CEO isn't going to understand.

The board also does things like develops performance measures which align with the vision and strategy, and help steer the C-suite executives, another thing we sorely lack.

We could have a board that is half-serving members, and half-civilian. The serving members half would obviously have representation from the different elements, and even different ranks (again, something we sorely lack... does anybody really think the CAF CWO has a f**king clue what it's like to be a Corporal in today's CAF?).

This may be worth a thread split... or not since it's a just a fantasy, but thought experiments can be fun.
Good place to start would be the Senate defense committee , they spend years studying issues and their reports are usually pretty good for what they think the CAF needs. Couple that with a few others, give the board control of procurement vs the GoC and we may have a winner.
 

Ostrozac

Sr. Member
Reaction score
87
Points
280
Point is, what if the GoC decides to appoint a bureaucrat to oversee the CAF? Can they legally do that, not that little terms like “legal” stop this GoC from doing what it wants.
The National Defence Act requires the CDS to be an officer (NDA 18), although as written it does seem to allow an officer that is attached or seconded to the CAF. So although a civilian bureaucrat or contractor would not be legal, a UK or US General might be, if government really wanted to put the CAF under outside management. Not that either the US or UK are perfect — both countries have jailed GOFOs recently, albeit for financial rather than sexual crimes.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
623
Points
910
How about 2 boards, the military one made up of a retired CDS, 3 senior officers from each service and 3 CWO's also from the 3 services and civilian board made up of a number of politicians and senior civil servants. Each board weighs the nominations with a set of criteria and scores each, the top scoring few from each goes up the line for selection?
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
244
Points
710
The National Defence Act requires the CDS to be an officer (NDA 18), although as written it does seem to allow an officer that is attached or seconded to the CAF. So although a civilian bureaucrat or contractor would not be legal, a UK or US General might be, if government really wanted to put the CAF under outside management. Not that either the US or UK are perfect — both countries have jailed GOFOs recently, albeit for financial rather than sexual crimes.
What about an Australian? A country with a geopolitical adversary might give a refreshing perspective.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
957
Points
890
There are already senior meetings with CAF's senior leadership - the notorious photo of "#Diversity" was of the Armed Forces Council Executive meeting - it's CDS, VCDS, commanders of RCN, CA, and RCAF, Comd CJOC, CMP, DComd NORAD, CANMILREP NATO and the CAF CWO.

Arguably, there are already too many senior meetings, with ill-defined and overlapping mandates, and a lack of understanding about the difference between DND and CAF mandates and responsibilities. Can anyone explain the mandates of DSX, DXPC, ADM Council, DMC, AFCX, AFC, AFMB, IRMC, PMB, DCB, DAC, CFDAC, CAFDAC, PMEC...?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
623
Points
910
As I recall the Aussie CDS removed soldiers from a political PR shot right there on the spot from behind the PM
 

PPCLI Guy

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
166
Points
710
There are already senior meetings with CAF's senior leadership - the notorious photo of "#Diversity" was of the Armed Forces Council Executive meeting - it's CDS, VCDS, commanders of RCN, CA, and RCAF, Comd CJOC, CMP, DComd NORAD, CANMILREP NATO and the CAF CWO.

Arguably, there are already too many senior meetings, with ill-defined and overlapping mandates, and a lack of understanding about the difference between DND and CAF mandates and responsibilities. Can anyone explain the mandates of DSX, DXPC, ADM Council, DMC, AFCX, AFC, AFMB, IRMC, PMB, DCB, DAC, CFDAC, CAFDAC, PMEC...?
I have attended all but one, and briefed at most of them. And no, I cannot nail down all the mandates...but have an innate sense of where to pitch stuff...
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
528
Points
910
I was studying something - can’t recall what , maybe an OPME but I came to the conclusion there are too damn many committees. Nothing appears to be decided and if things go south no one is responsible. Just my opinion. I’ve been known to be wrong .
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,539
Points
1,060
That's Right Honourable, young fella. Leading by bad example?
On the topic of having civilians take over the DND (I thought they had already?), I had mulled this idea over before but never posted about it, likely cause honestly I'm pretty much done thinking about the CAF and it's problems, I have few working brain cells left and need to hold onto them.

But, one of the reasons a corporation has a Board of Directors is to think about vision, the strategy, culture, etc. The CEO implements the Board's direction and runs the corporation on a full-time basis, dealing with present day issues, etc., but the Board does the job of thinking bigger and better. The size of the board varies but 7 to 15 members is pretty common. The board also holds the C-suite executives accountable.

I think the CAF could benefit from implementing such an idea. Being on a board is generally not a full-time job, and you can be member of a board for a long period of time (something that the CAF suffers from is the "only 2 years in any position" and so you've got no ability to implement any substantial changes in such a short amount of time).

It also allows you bring in outside perspectives and expertise. So for example, a board for the CAF could have members from the private sector on it, and benefit from that perspective and expertise, but also have uniformed members who of course, bring the perspective of the CAF and what it means to serve with unlimited liability, etc., stuff that the private sector CEO isn't going to understand.

The board also does things like develops performance measures which align with the vision and strategy, and help steer the C-suite executives, another thing we sorely lack.

We could have a board that is half-serving members, and half-civilian. The serving members half would obviously have representation from the different elements, and even different ranks (again, something we sorely lack... does anybody really think the CAF CWO has a f**king clue what it's like to be a Corporal in today's CAF?).

This may be worth a thread split... or not since it's a just a fantasy, but thought experiments can be fun.

Let’s be clear... ‘CAF CWO’ (and Bde CWO etc) is a political appointment, to match the US practice of elevating perfectly good SNCOs well above the level of their usefulness, or ability to have real influence over anything beyond morale patches and Commander’s coin designs.

Like ‘Militia Generals’, it’s a terrible embarrassment, of course, and something we should discontinue immediately in favour of thinning out the frontline chaff, and reinforcing the need for the highest quality leadership at the unit level - where meat meets metal.
 
Last edited:

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
106
Points
710
There are already senior meetings with CAF's senior leadership - the notorious photo of "#Diversity" was of the Armed Forces Council Executive meeting - it's CDS, VCDS, commanders of RCN, CA, and RCAF, Comd CJOC, CMP, DComd NORAD, CANMILREP NATO and the CAF CWO.

Arguably, there are already too many senior meetings, with ill-defined and overlapping mandates, and a lack of understanding about the difference between DND and CAF mandates and responsibilities. Can anyone explain the mandates of DSX, DXPC, ADM Council, DMC, AFCX, AFC, AFMB, IRMC, PMB, DCB, DAC, CFDAC, CAFDAC, PMEC...?

Yes, senior meetings with the CAF's senior leadership, a bunch of people with their own ideas, agendas, vision, etc., all fighting to institute that, for the two years (or often less for GOFOs) that they are in those positions... sounds a lot like a bunch of cats that needs herding.

A board of director provides a vision and strategic direction so that those cats can actually do something useful at those meetings, or in their day job, because they actually know where the institution is supposed to be headed. They might even have you know, strategic objectives that they have to achieve, and performance measures that measure progress towards those objectives. We'd probably waste a lot less time on meetings that aren't oriented towards those strategic objectives, such as the kind you're talking about.

Seriously, what's the vision for the CAF? Ask 20 different people you'll get 20 different answers (or if they're really in-tune, they say "I don't know..." which is a serious problem!) This is where we are severely lacking and we need to find a way to have a vision that doesn't change every month.

A Board of Directors seems to work pretty well for Google, Apple, Microsoft, Suncor, Tesla, KPMG, Deloitte, etc... do we have nothing we can learn from how they not only succeed, but continue to succeed for years and years on end, versus becoming "too big and bureaucratic," stagnating, and imploding which is what the CAF is currently doing and would have had to fold years ago if it actually had to be accountable for it's effective management?
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
106
Points
710
Let’s be clear... ‘CAF CWO’ (and Bde CWO etc) is a political appointment, to match the US practice of elevating perfectly good SNCOs well above the level of their usefulness, or ability to have real influence over anything beyond morale patches and Commander’s coin designs.

Like ‘Militia Generals’, it’s a terrible embarrassment, of course, and something we should discontinue immediately in favour of thinning out the frontline chaff, and reinforcing the need for the highest quality leadership at the unit level - where meat meets metal.

Don't need to convince me... I didn't bring them up as an example of something the CAF is doing right.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
629
Points
940
One of the problems with Armed Forces Council is that it is more like a committee of the corporation's vice presidents all of whom have a vested interest in seeing each of their own departments thrive, often at the expense of the others and even of the corporation as a whole.

A true Board of Directors comes mostly from outside the organization's operational leadership and is supposed to consist of honest brokers (frequently large shareholders with a stake in the corporations overall health and productivity) who are to look after the interests of its whole, even if at the expense of a faltering division and which may have the power to even replace the corporations operational executives if they are incapable of doing their job.

Effectively the Board ought to set strategy while the executives oversee day-to-day operations.

AFC does both and is responsible to no one albeit it should be to the Minister who unfortunately has no long term stake in the organization and frequently has conflicting priorities that run counter to long term strategy.

🍻
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,539
Points
1,060
Yes, senior meetings with the CAF's senior leadership, a bunch of people with their own ideas, agendas, vision, etc., all fighting to institute that, for the two years (or often less for GOFOs) that they are in those positions... sounds a lot like a bunch of cats that needs herding.

A board of director provides a vision and strategic direction so that those cats can actually do something useful at those meetings, or in their day job, because they actually know where the institution is supposed to be headed. They might even have you know, strategic objectives that they have to achieve, and performance measures that measure progress towards those objectives. We'd probably waste a lot less time on meetings that aren't oriented towards those strategic objectives, such as the kind you're talking about.

Seriously, what's the vision for the CAF? Ask 20 different people you'll get 20 different answers (or if they're really in-tune, they say "I don't know..." which is a serious problem!) This is where we are severely lacking and we need to find a way to have a vision that doesn't change every month.

A Board of Directors seems to work pretty well for Google, Apple, Microsoft, Suncor, Tesla, KPMG, Deloitte, etc... do we have nothing we can learn from how they not only succeed, but continue to succeed for years and years on end, versus becoming "too big and bureaucratic," stagnating, and imploding which is what the CAF is currently doing and would have had to fold years ago if it actually had to be accountable for it's effective management?

We do alot of work with Boards and Management Teams of various types and sizes of organization across Canada.

This is a completely unsuitable governance model for any organization whose primary mission is to close with a destroy the enemy.

Or just about anything else.

Seriously, while there are some fantastic examples out there, it can be a complete nightmare. Think 'strata council', with somewhat less accountability.
 
Last edited:

Infanteer

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
354
Points
1,030
I think the CAF could benefit from implementing such an idea. Being on a board is generally not a full-time job, and you can be member of a board for a long period of time (something that the CAF suffers from is the "only 2 years in any position" and so you've got no ability to implement any substantial changes in such a short amount of time).

It also allows you bring in outside perspectives and expertise. So for example, a board for the CAF could have members from the private sector on it, and benefit from that perspective and expertise, but also have uniformed members who of course, bring the perspective of the CAF and what it means to serve with unlimited liability, etc., stuff that the private sector CEO isn't going to understand.

The board also does things like develops performance measures which align with the vision and strategy, and help steer the C-suite executives, another thing we sorely lack.

We could have a board that is half-serving members, and half-civilian. The serving members half would obviously have representation from the different elements, and even different ranks (again, something we sorely lack... does anybody really think the CAF CWO has a f**king clue what it's like to be a Corporal in today's CAF?).


Board not full time - check.
Long serving members - check.
Outside perspectives and expertise - check.
Developing things to help steer C-Suite - check, I guess.

To further explore your idea, I guess the next logical question would be "how does a "CAF Board of Governors"" improve on the other types of "governance boards" already in existence? If Parliament's boards don't work, why would a CAF one?
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
957
Points
890
Or how about Cabinet?

It sounds like what's being recommended is a board of advisers. Would the egos of the most senior GOFOs accept anyone giving them advice? They already have staffs, many with expertise the GOFO lacks in specific areas - how would layering over yet another bunch of people to ignore assist in decision making?
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
657
Points
1,040
It would help if Canadian parliamentarians had a long-term, non-partisan vision for the Armed Forces....like Australia does.

#notgoingtohappen
 
Top