What the Coast Guard NMC Won't Tell You

What the Coast Guard NMC Won't Tell You

MarEx Editor’s Note: Andy Hammond spent many years working for the Coast Guard in the Boston, MA REC and in a variety of roles. He submitted this article for consideration and given his experience and base of knowledge, we thought that it would be a good “read.” MarEx stresses that Hammond’s opinions do not necessarily reflect those of this publication and we also recognize that this five part series will likely spark some discussion. As always, we welcome that dialogue.

The United States Coast Guard has embarked upon an ambitious plan to centralize the licensing and documentation process for mariners. The centerpiece of that effort is the consolidation of 17 REC’s into the new National Maritime Center (NMC), leaving the previously autonomous REC’s standing as local, service centers. The plan has its supporters and detractors, but the entire process is slated to be completed no later than the end of this year.

* * *

Part 4: Okay, Smart Guy -- What Would You Do?

It is always easy to criticize virtually anything. And while all of this “inside information” is nominally good reading, the question remains: How do you fix a broken program? NMC always had their own ideas, of course. The plan that is currently underway (consolidation of regional REC’s to West Virginia, leaving Storefront “help” desks) is the third plan proposed by NMC since 1998. The first two called for complete closure of the 17 REC’s, leaving one or two “super RECs”. While this latest plan is somewhat of a hybrid of those earlier proposals, the basic premise is the same.

With the creation of the National Maritime Center in West Virginia, the decision to issue a credential will no longer rest with the local OCMI or his representative (the SIP), but by a national OCMI. As this plan was being presented to REC staffers in 2003, all of the SIPs were asked for input. However, that “input” was limited to the general plan and any ideas to keep the REC’s structured as before, were simply brushed aside. By that time, the decision to centralize the OCMI authority was a “done deal” and all input had to be couched within those parameters. At that point, any ideas not centered on the migration of local authority to a centralized location elsewhere were probably sent to the “round” file.

Along the way, I made several observations on how I thought this program could be improved to make the credentialing process easier. These ideas did NOT include taking away the authority at the local level. I also recognized that while it might be easy to be in the field and make recommendations, I was not unaware of how things generally work in Washington. The regulatory process is slow and cumbersome, unless you want to restructure the whole program. However, my ideas on how the program could move forward were put forward, and some of these are listed below:

•Amend and update the regulations. The current licensing and documentation regulations were “revised” in 1989. Several “patches” have been added along the way, but a complete overhaul is long overdue. Incorporate the STCW code and make that the licensing scheme. As scary as that sounds to some mariners, the reality is that it’s a less complicated structure that requires more of a practical approach to credentialing a mariner.

•Consolidate all credentials. The time it takes to enter data and print a license, MMD, and STCW endorsement for a mariner is simply outrageous. This extreme inefficiency adds hours to the process and opens the door for countless errors in production. Mariners should be issued ONE style of credential for all types of qualifications to match all US and STCW capacities. Plans are currently underway to do this, but as usual, the Coast Guard is taking the slow road and asking for too much input. Just do it!

•Prioritize applications. The Boston REC typically receives approximately 5,000 - to - 6,000 applications annually. Upwards of 30-40% of those applications are from individuals who are NOT using the credential to work and not surprisingly, those applications serve to clog a system that is already overloaded. Like other government credentialing systems, there should be a different process for those who actually need their credential for employment from those that don’t. One of the tools that NMC is using to move forward with this plan is to state that mariners have right to expect better service. This is true, but what exactly is that? The retired mariner who simply wants a Continuity Renewal should have a much different expectation than the mariner who’s waiting to go back to the ship.

•Pay them and they will come! I always believed in the theory that one could do more with less highly qualified AND compensated employees. Put a true and accurate market value on the REC jobs and decide whether a government employee or a contractor can complete the mission. In either case, you need to have well trained employees that understand the merchant marine and understand the service nature of this job. The need to establish a bona fide training mechanism for those entering the program is paramount in this effort.

The four basic ideas for improvement laid out above would, of course, take a lot of work. On the other hand, the money being spent on standing up a new NMC and centralizing the entire process could have paid for these ideas and many more. Contrary to the national perspective on the REC’s, there were some offices that were as efficient and professional as could be expected, especially given the limited tools that were made available. These “models” should have been used as examples for the rest of the country and other REC’s should have been held accountable to the same standards.

The analogy of comparing Coast Guard REC’s to -- for example -- a Starbucks franchise is not misplaced. Whether that storefront is in Los Angeles or Baton Rouge, you expect and get the same level of service and the Latte is pretty much identical. You can’t force the maritime licensing program into a cookie cutter operation in all areas, but the expected level of service and professionalism should be the same, no matter where you go.

To be continued…

Next Week (Final installment + links to previous 4): Part 5 -- Time to Move On