Hello?

[audette]

Oct 21, 2014 1:09:10 GMT -5 amaristella said:

Oct 21, 2014 1:05:27 GMT -5 audette said:

Well, if anyone was curious, the FRG mutiny was about as successful as I thought it would be. I had a nifty powerpoint, and I think that _shocked_ the battalion commander. A couple folks were impressed that I was able to back up my argument with references to SOP and AR regs. But, in the end, it was shot down.

A couple of my friends ended up backtracking on the support they said they'd give my argument at the meeting, and that was _really_ frustrating.

I've decided I just don't give a damn anymore. I'll do what I can. But, I've mentally checked out.


The part that really sucks - the FRG is part of DH's evaluation. So by me checking out, it'll impact that. I am so fucking over FRG-shit.

I'm really sorry. And one of the things that bothers me the most is the people who should have backed you up but didn't.

Yeah. That's going to stay under my skin for a while. Both had seen the exact powerpoint deck I had put together ahead of time, so there were no surprises for them.

Hell, I even baked stuff for their company's fundraisers earlier this week (because, well, they were both in a position of being the only person in their own FRG's baking for the fundraisers, and that's a lot for one person to do...).

I am so ready to move to the next base.

ETA: The more I dwell on this, the more I feel like I was completely stabbed in the back.  Blargh.  These are people I considered pretty good friends...

[pennylane]

audette, I'm sorry your attempts to better the FRG are getting shot down, and that your friends didn't back you up. I'd be pissed. After seeing what goes on behind the scenes with our FRG, I don't ever want to go anywhere near running one. There's just so much BS that goes into doing it, and it's not worth it when it's a volunteer gig.

[audette]

To their credit, my buddies were working to help come up with a solution. Both presented potential solutions to the primary issue to me privately, after the meeting. We are trying to find out if either of those options would break the rules before proceeding. It's still not ideal, but it's a darn sight better than before...


But, yeah. After this, I will happily return to my "Sure, I can bake some stuff to help out with that fundraiser" standard of involvement. Much simpler, and _much_ less frustrating.

[amaristella]

I don't say this often, but it sounds like something that deserves to go up the chain of command. Not to be an obnoxious spouse, but because someone somewhere needs to re-examine these regulations if the way that they are written is working out so badly. With the FRG I used to be in when it came time to tweak our bylaws every year I used to say that the rules were there to make things work better, and if they were making it worse then they needed to change.

[audette]

Oct 21, 2014 14:10:34 GMT -5 amaristella said:

I don't say this often, but it sounds like something that deserves to go up the chain of command. Not to be an obnoxious spouse, but because someone somewhere needs to re-examine these regulations if the way that they are written is working out so badly. With the FRG I used to be in when it came time to tweak our bylaws every year I used to say that the rules were there to make things work better, and if they were making it worse then they needed to change.

DH has <45 days left in this position, and then we (hopefully) begin the process of clearing.

So, I'm kinda at the point of I just don't give a fuck anymore.  The guy taking over DH's position has no spouse, so the unit is really screwed regarding FRG stuff.

It's all just dumb.  Utterly, completely, stupid.  And makes me hate FRGs all the more.  They should have been left as purely social groups, with no official responsibilities.

[audette]

Oct 21, 2014 14:12:54 GMT -5 Stan said:

Bollocks to your friends audette!

I'm glad you at least stuck it to the guy a bit even if he wouldn't see reason and efficiency. It really blows that it matters for YH's OER. That makes me feel some sort of way anyway. Ugh.

Yeppers. Getting a bad OER on this _greatly_ increases the chances of DH getting RIF'd. Or for him to hit up or out cutoff.  So, sadly, this might spell the beginning of the end for DH's career, too.  It's pretty damn frustrating.

I was unimpressed that the BC didn't even bother looking over the ppt slides I handed out yesterday.  Turns out (according to DH) he didn't have his bifocals with him, so he wouldn't have been able to read it.  DH figured he likely took the handout with him to look over later.  Nope.  The BC and the battalion MS also left his copy behind - I know, because I stuck around to help clean up the room.

Whee.

[audette]

Oct 21, 2014 16:22:48 GMT -5 Stan said:

Oct 21, 2014 16:12:41 GMT -5 audette said:

DH has <45 days left in this position, and then we (hopefully) begin the process of clearing.

So, I'm kinda at the point of I just don't give a fuck anymore.  The guy taking over DH's position has no spouse, so the unit is really screwed regarding FRG stuff.

It's all just dumb.  Utterly, completely, stupid.  And makes me hate FRGs all the more.  They should have been left as purely social groups, with no official responsibilities.

And this is why it pisses me off. This is why it should be a damn hired position. Nothing you do should affect your spouse's OER. I know that's not reality, believe me I know, but it's BS. And the FRG shouldn't suffer because someone doesn't get married. I AM ANGRY STAN! 

You know, we're only 10 or 15 years past when my behavior would have specifically been part of DH's OER...  Mind boggling, really...

But, yeah, this is one area where my behavior can impact it.  And it sucks.  Frankly, I'd have some pretty choice words for the BC if I wasn't still hoping that maybe my husband won't get a scathing OER...

<45 days.  We're counting down.

[ohyouknow]

So honest question - how can a spouse's involvement in FRG be on an officer's OER, especially since you said the next person isn't married? Are they really rating an officer based on what his/her spouse has done in regards to the FRG? Has anyone challenged that in official channels?

[ohyouknow]

Ah, okay. That makes more sense. Thanks. ;-)

[audette]

Oct 22, 2014 12:02:26 GMT -5 Stan said:

Oct 22, 2014 11:52:39 GMT -5 ohyouknow said:

So honest question - how can a spouse's involvement in FRG be on an officer's OER, especially since you said the next person isn't married? Are they really rating an officer based on what his/her spouse has done in regards to the FRG? Has anyone challenged that in official channels?

I think the success of the FRG itself is an OER bullet. Whether or not the spouse is involved.

This is correct. If anyone else was available to run the FRG, I'd happily hand it off to them, and support them from the sidelines. There is no one else. So, if DH is going to have an FRG, I'm it...

Hopefully my mutinous attempts in the FRG haven't already had DH blacklisted... I think he's at the point where he doesn't care, to be honest. Can't get blood from a stone, and all that...

But, yeah, my mutinous activity has been to try and get the FRG organized at the BN level, instead of company level. The BN has all of about 50 families here, and we're slated to lose about half (or more) of those in the next 4-5 months. According to army regs, if we adhere to them properly, that means that more than 1/3 of all of the current 50 spouses _must_ hold an officer position within their company's FRG. I have _never_ seen an FRG with that level of involvement. I think it's ridiculous that there is an expectation of doing so, to be honest.  And it'll get worse as we lose families to PCS moves.

But, the BN Commander doesn't give a shit. So, the companies get to figure out how to make it work. He heard me give the raw numbers, and just shrugged it off.

Thankfully, we're one of those PCS moves.  That's keeping me from going ape-shit on the guy.

[audette]

And, it seems I have finally managed to vent enough about this situation that I have realized there is a stupidly simple solution to the issue. Incredibly simple, and perfectly within regs.

We will have no FRG Informal Fund. Then we need no treasurer, no alternate treasurer, and can run an FRG with 1 officer.

It does mean that there might be an event or two that DH and I will have to kick in some cash to help fund. I am OK with this.


All of the regs indicate that the informal fund is optional. It's always referenced as FRG's "may" have an informal fund. Not _must_, or _shall_, but _may_.


I am feeling so dumb that I didn't think of this sooner. Blargh.