DC Metropolitan Police Chief swears in 4,000 Officers: A Leadership Profile

Cathy L. Lanier

The District of Columbia’s Chief of Police, Cathy Lanier swore in over 4,ooo sworn law enforcement officers from all over the United States today.  Officers from some 90 agencies volunteered for the trip to DC to participate in the Inauguration of President-elect Obama.

Cathy L. Lanier was named Chief of Metropolitan Police Department by DC Mayor Adrian Fenty. She officially assumed the leadership position on January 2, 2007. On April 3, 2007, members of DC Council approved confirmation.

Chief Lanier has spent her entire law enforcement career with the Metropolitan Police Department, beginning in 1990. Most of her career has been in uniformed patrol, where she served as Commander of the Fourth District, one of the largest and most diverse residential patrol districts in the city. She also served as the Commanding Officer of the Department’s Major Narcotics Branch and Vehicular Homicide Units.

More recently, Chief Lanier served as Commander of the Special Operations Division (SOD) for four years, where she managed the Emergency Response Team, Aviation and Harbor Units, Horse Mounted and Canine Units, Special Events/Dignitary Protection Branch, and Civil Disturbance Units. During her tenure as SOD Commander, she established the agency’s first Homeland Security/Counter-Terrorism Branch and created an agency-wide chemical, biological, radiological response unit known as the Special Threat Action Team.

In 2006, the MPDC’s Office of Homeland Security and Counter-Terrorism (OHSCT) was created, and Chief Lanier was tapped to be its first Commanding Officer. A highly respected professional in the areas of homeland security and community policing, she took the lead role in developing and implementing coordinated counter-terrorism strategies for all units within the MPDC and launched Chief Lanier is a graduate of the FBI National Academy and the federal Drug Enforcement Administration’s Drug Unit Commanders Academy. She holds Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees in Management from Johns Hopkins University, and a Master’s Degree in National Security Studies from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. She is certified at the technician level in Hazardous Materials Operations.

Anonymous on SCIFs and the Intelligence Specialist Rating

We’re bringing another comment forward as its own post today.  The comment from an anonymous individual speaks intelligently and articulately to the issue.  On the issue of the new Intelligence Specialist rating which the writer says has not “A” School at this time, I wonder why we don’t buy a few seats at the Navy’s IS “A” School.

The comment below is from the post You’re Off Base with Coast Guards SCIF Issue, and is an ongoing debate between the writer and Michael Dekort.

I’m not going to respond to some of your silliness – call it a cop out or whatever. I will talk to you about the SCIF because it seems you might actually be listening. It’s really simple story.

Once upon a time, the Coast Guard was in the Department of Transportation. They had a pretty simple job, SAR, LE, ATON, although they didn’t get a lot of money for doing it. Important fact here: No “Legacy” assets have a permanently installed SCIF. Hence, there were no personnel who can operate or maintain a SCIF.

One day they noticed their ships were getting pretty old and they decided to embark on a project called Deepwater. In the middle of this planning project a little thing called 9/11 happened and the Coast Guard’s roles change significantly – and they ended up in a new department. At some point someone said “We’re beefing up our intel program, let’s add a SCIF”. So that space went into the ship’s hull design. Fact: Ever since the ship was up on blocks, the space was intended to be a SCIF.

Well, in the interest of beefing up the intel program in general, in addition to manning these new SCIFs, the Coast Guard developed the IS rate. Basically they took who ever wanted to swap rates, and if they had a clearance and could speak some foreign languages, they made them an IS. There isn’t an IS school yet, and the training they have gone through has either been job specific or in what their previous rating was. (Want documentation – go to Fred’s place, I’m sure the message announcing the creation of the IS rate is on there somewhere.)

So progress continued on the NSC – the SCIF remained empty – because there was a bigger problem – C4ISR. No secure comms, well, you can’t even do your regular job, let alone tack this SCIF thing on.

The SCIF was never and is not intended to integrate with the shipboard C4ISR program. So, in the spirit of keeping it simple, address the known TEMPEST issues with the current C4ISR program. Get the darn thing certified. Then, talk about adding the SCIF and the personnel. Don’t compound the problem, when as of right now it isn’t even a necessity. It seems fairly rational.

Yes, it’s taking a long time. I would say that is due to a multitude of problems – a 3 week strike at the shipyard resulted in NG pushing the delivery date back by 3 months. I don’t know how that math works out, but that’s kind of why you should look into how the contractors have screwed up. That behavior sucks for the Coast Guard since they desperately need new ships. It sucks for that crew – as all they want to do is their job. Slowly it’s happening though.

If you want to have a open discussion about this – fair. Don’t shoot messengers like me or other anonymous posters because you don’t like finding out that you’re off base or there isn’t a grand conspiracy. Which in all honesty is what you do. If you don’t like what you hear, then you’re like what about the 123’s or Ron Porter? I don’t care. This statement is about the SCIF, the lack of personnel, and how things take time to do it right.

Does the Coast Guard need a Secretary – and one just like this?

In a recent interview with multiple news outlets coordinated by Military Times, the Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter took questions from shipbuilding to relief of senior officers.  The Secretary’s thoughts on accountability should ring true for all sea services.

Donald Winter

We’ve had a long-standing history and tradition of maintaining high standards and holding people accountable. We will continue to do everything we can to screen people, to train people, to prepare people, to ensure that we do the absolute best. As we go through the board process, we’ll make sure the precepts help the board select the right people and select the right people for command.

And I think to a great extent, that type of high standard and expectation and accountability has been one of those factors that have distinguished, if you will, the Navy and the Marine Corps.

Secretary of the Navy Winter contrasted the Navy with the Marine Corps and the Army — which have had fewer reliefs — by saying that land forces have “a different structure, if you will, where you have multiple individuals engaged in command.”

And it comes from the ancient history of our Navy, and the idea that when a ship goes across the horiz, you know, over the horizon, that ship and its crew is totally and completely dependent upon the captain of the ship, and you damn well better have the utmost confidence in that individual.

I’d say again we have a history and a tradition of strict accountability, and I believe that has served our Navy well, and I see no reason to change that approach.

Character and the Naval Officer

RADM James Ramage

by RADM James D. “Jig Dog” Ramage, USN(Ret)

Character is hard to define, but I know it when I see it. While it is associated with leadership, it is not the same thing. Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were great leaders, but all were without moral or ethical strength, i.e., character.

One of the great leaders who we in Naval Aviation during World War II admired was CDR John G. Crommelin, who served as air boss and executive officer in USS Enterprise (CV-6) during 1942 and 1943. During that time, four new commanding officers passed through the ship, and John provided the character, the underpinning of spirit, that saw the carrier through some trying times. The man was everywhere — he spent many hours in the ready rooms and elsewhere on the ship. He was an excellent pilot and flew with the squadrons when we operated ashore in the forward area. He was the soul of the ship, the very embodiment of the name Enterprise in a way that dramatized the character of this strong leader. The “Big E” was the only fast carrier remaining in the South Pacific in the period of time between the loss of Hornet (CV-8) at the Battle of Santa Cruz in 1942 and the arrival of Essex (CV-9) and others in her class beginning in 1943. John Crommelin later played a key role in the 1949 struggle to save Naval Aviation. In placing his convictions before his career, Crommelin was forced into retirement as a result of his outspoken support of the carriers in a page of history known as “The Revolt of the Admirals.” None who know him ever heard him express any regret for his courage in the face of overwhelming odds — he knew what must be done, and he gave it his best shot regardless of the cost to him personally.

800-foot motor vessel CSL Argosy

Coast Guard responds to aground cargo ship A tug boat stays near the 800-foot motor vessel CSL Argosy near the mouth of the Magothy River north of Annapolis, Md., Sunday, Jan. 18, 2009. The motor vessel CSL Argosy, a Bahamian flagged bulk carrier, ran aground in the lower Craig Hill Channel just north of Annapolis, Md., Saturday, Jan. 17, 2009. (U.S. Coast Guard photo/Curtis Brown)