STF

Discussion on Bill to Amend Fleet Command and Other Mundane Matters (FCOMM)

Posted July 23, 2019, 1:58 p.m. by Admiral Joe P (Librarian / TECH Chairman) (Joe P)

Posted by Fleet Admiral James Sinclair (President) in Discussion on Bill to Amend Fleet Command and Other Mundane Matters (FCOMM)

Posted by Rear Admiral Daniel Lerner (Personnel Director, EGO) in Discussion on Bill to Amend Fleet Command and Other Mundane Matters (FCOMM)

Posted by Steve Johnson (Vice President) in Discussion on Bill to Amend Fleet Command and Other Mundane Matters (FCOMM)
This is a proposal for an amendment to Fleet Command and Other Mundane Matters (FComm). Discussion will be open for 7 days, ending on 7/29/19. Helping with moderation of this discussion will be Sarah Hemenway.

Steve Johnson
Vice President


Proposed Change:
- Change requirements to be a Fleet Commander or Assistant Fleet Commander

Original Text:
(Under the section of “Fleet Structure and Command”, the subsection “Restrictions”)
The Fleet Commander must be a current or former CO of the fleet in question, or a current or former XO in the fleet in question with CO experience. The Assistant Fleet Commander must be a current or former CO or XO of the fleet in question.

Proposed Revision:
The Fleet Commander must be a current or former CO within STF, or a current or former XO within STF, with Assistant Fleet Command experience and a member rank of Captain or above. The Assistant Fleet Commander must be a current or former CO or XO within STF.

I’m currently against this proposal. To be clear, I’m in favour of removing the “fleet in question” requirement, but I’m against removing the need for CO experience (as defined elsewhere in that paragraph of the bylaw, which excludes aCO positions).

In my earlier post (https://www.star-fleet.com/core/command/command/notes/47811/) and Joe’s follow up post (https://www.star-fleet.com/core/command/command/notes/47812/) a number of responsibilities of the FComms were identified.

My concern remains regarding whether a person without CO experience - just being an XO with AFComm experience, with or without a rank requirement - can reasonably be expected to carry out those responsibilities. It would make this post too long if I went through the FComm’s responsibilities and asked if someone could do it without having had the CO role before.

I’m further concerned about how a person who has not been a CO before is supposed to train new COs. Or how a person with no CO background is able to make a determination over who should be a new CO. Or how a person with no CO background and a new, inexperienced CO are supposed to make a joint decision about an XO appointment (that’s why even if the CO is new, you at least know you have someone who has been a CO who has to be involved with selecting the XO).

I’m further concerned about FComms with no CO background will be overly deferential e to their COs, when they are, in fact, supposed to be holding COs accountable, and supposed to balance the CO’s needs with the needs of the club.

Finally, there’s been a lot of behind-the-scenes discussions and action items about the quality of our ships and how that can be traced to a lack of knowledge with our FComms about the job responsibilities. Why in the middle of that are we even considering reducing the experience requirement for an FComm to the point where they need no CO experience??

I’ve heard a couple arguments (here and elsewhere) about why we should get rid of the CO requirement, which I wish to address:

First, I have heard that there are situations where an XO with AFComm experience has better STF experience/skills/knowledge than a CO. I respond with a counter-point. If we have a person in a CO position who isn’t that great, and an XO who shows they would make a great a CO (which you would have to be if you were going to be an FComm), then what does that say about our CO appointment process? If the person is good enough to be an FComm, then prove it by appointing them as a CO, and removing the CO who sucks at the job.

Second, I have heard that this will get new members more involved. I’m all for getting more members involved in STF administration. I’ve spent two-and-a-half terms trying to do that through various initiatives. I’ll point out a few things: (1) we already have ways to get newer members involved, (2) given how frustrated my prior attempts were to get newer members involved, I question whether there’s this large-pool of qualified new members who are desperate to be running the club (I mean, I created really easy ways to for new members to have a huge impact on the club, and none took up the opportunity), and (3) FComms - when done properly - serve too vital a role in the actual well-being of the club to start watering down the job to make it more available to new members.

-Daniel

I would have to disagree just slightly with that summation, Joe. I won’t speak for anyone else, but part of my reasoning for looking at the modification is to make it possible for members who express the drive and desire to take on more responsibility within the club at an earlier opportunity; not simply to have a specific person in a specific role. I would like to see us encouraging this kind of excitement, rather than putting what I see as unnecessary obstacles in the way of it.

I don’t know why you’re mentioning my name here because you aren’t replying to a post I’ve made, but one made by Daniel.

I also don’t know why you’re lecturing me about putting obstacles in front of anything, because I haven’t opposed the proposal.

Joe

Now as to the ‘CO Experience’ discussion. I think were attributing a great deal of blanket experience to this position that may not exist. I mean, as it stands now, a person could be promoted to CO and named FComm the same day. That doesn’t give them CO experience, just a title. That, in my opinion only, makes the present requirement of ‘CO experience’ kind of an unnecessary obstacle, especially for people who have taken the time to learn how to admin a ship in their role as an XO. I completely understand the concern that unqualified people would be given roles that could potentially overwhelm them, and that being detrimental to the club. To that I would like to point out, as Steven Sigle did, that there are checks and balances to this. Candidates are vetted by multiple people with experience in these arenas, and it would (as it does now) fall to those people to ensure candidates are qualified and prepared. At the end of the day, the goal should be getting people who want the responsibility and whom we can trust to be solid custodians of the fleets in the role of FComm; and providing that opportunity to members as quickly as we can in a responsible fashion. And the earlier we can encourage people to pursue the position, the broader pool of candidates we will have to draw from. And that will only help to strengthen the club.

James


Posts on The Command Ship

In topic

Posted since


© 1991-2024 STF. Terms of Service

Version 1.15.9