MarEx Mailbag:
This week’s Mailbag is heavy, referencing more than one MarEx on line article. Read on to see what MarEx readers had to say this week. Last week, our lead piece referenced a recent Coast Guard & Maritime Transportation Subcommittee hearing on The National Maritime Center and Mariner Credentials, which served notice that seafarers are far from satisfied with the current state of affairs at the National Maritime Center (NMC). The meeting, which took place on July 9 at the Rayburn House Office Building, involved pointed testimony from a host of individuals representing various sectors of U.S. mariner demographics had painted a scathing picture of inefficiencies and inequities at today’s NMC. The piece also dissected the televised “whipping” session and questioned the wisdom of such formats in the future. You can read our July 16th editorial, entitled “Mariners on National Maritime Center: Mission Not Accomplished” by clicking HERE. Naturally, our readers have their own unvarnished opinions, as well. Read on to see what they think of the NMC and our comments on that subject:
Joe, It is a huge task to consolidate all of the nation’s regional centers’ work into one central building. Knowing that peoples’ careers/earnings/livelihoods were at stake, you would think that our government (USCG) would have taken ample steps to deal with all contingencies which they the government were creating….including hiring and training more skilled personnel to deal with the inevitable predictable SNAFU’s. But no, they did no such thing. Instead, it would seem that the USCG put some narrow-thinking drones with blinders in charge of the program. Then they created a “Perfect Storm” by scheduling TWIC and the “Single Document” programs to coincide with all of the centralization from the REC Centers, without any extra personnel to deal with it all. Great Planning Fellas! Doesn’t that constitute Gross Ignorance, Gross Incompetence, Gross Negligence? Heads should roll. Starting with the uppermost USCG “leadership.” I know that government isn’t known for hiring people with vision or imagination; but come on guys! Regards, Andy Charlton MarEx Editor’s Remarks: Andy Charlton isn’t afraid to express an opinion, on a regular basis, through more than one outlet. In his E-mail to MarEx, he issues his own indictment of sorts. Here’s another letter on the same subject:
Greetings Mr. Keefe, I just finished your editorial on the Subcommittee hearing on The National Maritime Center and Mariner Credentials. While I have my doubts about any substantive change that will result from the hearing, I was heartened that it took place. A very bright light needs to be shown upon the NMC. I waited over 90 days for approval to test, at which point I gave up on the 100 Ton Master portion of the application in order to get the approval and move on to testing. I am still not sure that they got my STCW correct based on the coursework that I took for my license. Many are receiving MMC's that are incorrect or incomplete, some are just getting them without testing. I think that Mr. Wells made a great point when he asked that the process be simplified. I would like to know why a government function such as evaluating applications is contracted to the private sector and not actually conducted by the Coast Guard. All the best, Dave Russell MarEx Editor’s Remarks: Mr. Russell thinks that these subcommittee hearings should take place but also doubts that substantive change will be the resultant. I myself feel that the hearings could be conducted in a far more constructive manner. Certainly, personal attacks have no place in the process. Here’s another:
Mr. Keefe, I just wanted to drop you a note concerning your recent editorial and thank you for your evenhanded coverage of merchant mariner licensing. For obvious reasons, I would prefer you not publish my email/identity. The licensing program has and continues to have problems. That can't be denied. However, personal attacks like the ones undertaken by Captain Block are uncalled for. Thank you for attempting to bring civility to the discussion. While admitting that the individual mariners haven't always seen positive results from the efforts to streamline the process, the system is fundamentally sounder than that of just a few years ago. Your coverage has correctly called us to task when we've messed up and yet has not ignored the successes and given credit when credit is due. To say that Captain Stalfort is purposely sabotaging mariners is ludicrous and a real disservice to someone who is working hard to make the system better. Name withheld by Request MarEx Editor’s Remarks: This one comes from the inside, obviously. But, it states nicely what I also believe to be the truth. Here’s another letter, this one from a mariner who just recently renewed his credentials:
Mr. Keefe, Your editorial is timely because on July 15, I was issued my 50-ton Master with towing endorsement. I too had an issue with the NMC. On July 10, the NMC said they were holding my packet - because, according to them, the endorsing medical review officer was not certified through one of two credentialing bodies. Of course, the MRO WAS certified, they had just missed the name on the credentialing body's website (the American Association of Medical Review Officers). With five (toll-free) phone calls, three e-mails and one fax, I was able to resolve the issue with the NMC in one day. The IASKNMC operator I dealt with for three of the calls was very courteous and helpful. The other two - well, it's government after all. Actually, two of the phone calls and the fax wouldn't have been necessary except that one of the operators really ticked me off. But the bottom line is that the problem was resolved in one day. The evaluator wasn't afraid to change course and correct the mistake, and my credential was issued in good order. Compared say to your local motor vehicle bureau or the IRS - this was a piece of cake, and they do try to be accessible. Of course, you can help yourself a lot by being meticulous about making sure that your packet is complete, in the proper order and that all forms are legible. I can't sign on to the NMC-bashing. They did OK by me. Best regards, Captain Bill Krulac MarEx Editor’s Remarks: Obviously, there is at least one satisfied customer out there. I think the letter also goes to the point – without necessarily saying so – that every single application and mariner is different. Retired Coast Guard Commandant ADM James Loy once said, “If you’ve seen one port, you’ve seen one port.” I think that adage can be applied to each and every individual seeking new or renewed credentials today. Sorting through that can’t be easy. Can NMC do better with that task? Absolutely. And, I said as much last week. We have one last letter referencing NMC:
Hey Joe, Enjoyed reading your editorial on the hearings at the Rayburn House and your positive outlook on the NMC and Captain Stalfort. Also you were more then kind in your words of Richard Block. Each Thursday, I look forward to getting your e-mail and reading all the articles within. Thanks for the great job you do. Name Withheld by Request MarEx Editor’s Remarks: This letter is from a satisfied MarEx customer. Thanks for reading and writing. We’ll try to keep it coming. The next letter references our editorial of July 2, entitled, “Transportation Infrastructure: Senator Boxer (almost) Gets it Right.” The editorial referenced a June 25 Senate Environment and Public Works hearing that revolved largely on how to keep the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) solvent. Financed primarily by the gas tax which has yielded markedly lower revenues because of reduced mileage by Americans in the wake of $4+ per gallon gasoline in the Fall of 2008 (and the soured economy that followed), the Highway Trust Fund will very soon (August) go broke without the 18 month extension asked for by the Obama Administration. In response, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) asked that ports, rails, trucks – the heavy users that theoretically take the highest toll on our nation’s highway system – join in paying for transportation repairs. We contended that Boxer herself, a self-proclaimed environmentalist, has once again failed to grasp the big picture. And that’s because funding for the short term – no matter what source it comes from – won’t solve the underlying problem. That’s where Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) reform comes in. Read the editorial by clicking HERE. Read the letter from our reader below:
Mr. Keefe: Thanks for your Editorial about the HMT and Sen Boxer. Along with the substantive case you make for the benefits of short sea shipping, an additional fruit is reduced traffic fatalities. As a life saving professional, that makes a big deal to me. The trucking impact on domestic highways includes a staggering death toll that is typically overlooked. I suspect American trucking "out-guns" Al-Qaeda any day of the week as far as killing US citizens goes. I proposed, in a letter to Sens Lautenberg and Oberstar, a 1-2 punch combo that would phase-in a progressively escalating users fee for a specific Federal Highway. In my example, Interstate 95 and 5 would be the initial pilots cases. Over a 3 year period, beef up spending for small port infrastructure while simultaneously rolling out an annually increasing users fee for a I95 or I5 sticker. Shippers who insist on using these designated roads still could but eventually the cost of doing so would overtake the cost of using a ship running the parallel coastal route. This results in both a carrot (grants and incentives to ports) and a stick (much higher user fees) approach to get trucks off the roads and like you said, start reaping the bonus fruit of reduced traffic congestion in numerous top ten metropolitan areas, reduce GHG impacts, reduce traffic fatalities, extend bridge life, revitalize domestic shipping capacity etc, etc. Interstates 10 and 35 would also lend themselves to parallel shipping routes, as do several others no doubt. And like you said- there will always be a need for trucks to move the goods from the nearest port to final destination. Perhaps you would consider the "stick" addition of this policy proposal to augment your existing carrot and then include it future outreach? Name withheld Upon Request. MarEx Editor’s Remarks: I really liked this letter because (well, because it agreed with my position) but also because it brings up points that I missed. MarEx readers are pretty good about taking me to task when necessary and letting me know of other angles, too. The reader suggested that I incorporate this into a future piece and I probably will – but I did want to give credit where credit was due, even if this particular person wanted to remain anonymous. Next job: finding the DOT actuarial tables that this individual says (in a subsequent E-mail) reference predictions on highway deaths. That ought to be an eye-opener. The next letter references yet another MarEx editorial, this time our July 9 lead piece entitled, “Lining up the Gas: Steaming in the Wrong Direction.” In that editorial, we lamented the potential mistake of taking North Slope “stranded” gas to market some 1,700+ miles through Canada instead of keeping control of this energy through a Valdez, AK marine terminal. You can read our 9 July editorial, entitled “Lining up the Gas: Steaming in the Wrong Direction” by clicking HERE. And, you can read what yet another reader had to say on this subject:
To: Joe Keefe On the subject of moving North Slope to the Lower Forty-Eight, most of us seem to have forgotten that a project was proposed to tap North Slope gas by moving it by a pipeline more-or-less paralleling the existing crude oil line to Valdez, where an LNG liquefaction plant was proposed to the west, as I recall, of the petroleum terminal. From there, LNG was to have been carried to an LNG receiving terminal in California, with the Santa Barbara Channel being one potential site. That was shot down, as I recall, because the landside facilities would allegedly have interfered with some Native American sacred sites. There were other problems, too. Moving LNG carriers from Valdez through Prince William Sound to the open ocean was perceived as being much too hazardous. (The proposal was made in the immediate post-Exxon Valdez days.) Detailed operating regimes were called for and accepted by the potential operators. Since that time the world has seen an exponential increase in the number of LNG carriers in the operating fleet, and, like all ships, an appropriate amount of tender, loving care in their operation is called for. This nation rates highly in shooting ourselves in the foot regarding energy, and the latest North Slope affair seems to be right on target in this respect. William duBarry Thomas MarEx Editor’s Remarks: Mr. Thomas puts together a nice synopsis. And, the final sentence of his letter sums up my thoughts nicely, as well. Thanks for reading and writing.