Question for the Candidate: Davis/Sinclair

Posted July 17, 2020, 2:03 a.m. by Fleet Captain Jerome Davis (Presidential Candidate) (Jerome Davis)

Posted by Matt Evans in Question for the Candidate: Davis/Sinclair
Hey guys, thanks in advance for taking the time to read this and respond. I’ve read through your updated platform ideas and all of the additions and adjustments to it. I have a concern though that the idea of establishing a committee, admiralty board, and task force is just going to mire the club in unneeded bureaucracy. For one thing I’ve always been under the impression this club is founded upon the idea of being casual and having fun. I have seen when the politics becomes “serious business” and all, but for the vast majority of members that aspect doesn’t hold much meaning. My second thought is that we most likely don’t have enough people interested in holding these positions or the ones who would want to might have to double up. Finally an inclusivity task force seem to me to be like a morality police. While I agree that ensuring STF is a place where everyone needs to have a social environment to be themselves without discrimination, I feel uncomfortable with dictating what is and isn’t acceptable beyond common decency. I’m also unsure of what such a taskforce would be able to do that TECH or the Executives wouldn’t be able to do in the face of a problem like that.

So with explaining my thoughts and impressions, let me get to the question part.

Why do you feel that establishing more advisory or regulatory groups are necessary?

Because the current system is ineffective in addressing the issues due to the narrow scope of their mandate. The board would aid in revision of the EGO governing policies to aid the EGO in effectively responding to a wider breadth of community issues.

How do you plan to incentivize people to join these groups?

The same reason people join Rotary or a City Commission, to know they have a part in bettering society or… in our case… the club.

Will it be allowed for people to double or triple up if there isn’t enough interest? Will it be allowed if that’s what they want despite not needing to?

If need be, yes. But from my internal research, membership in the board won’t be a challenge. I don’t understand your second question

Do you plan to make the positions electable or by Presidential appointment?

Volunteer ad-hoc.

Perhaps it’s unfair of me to say it like this, but what sort of reach would the morality police have in disciplinary action? Would it be subject to the approval of the President?

Why do you think of it as morality police? That statement alone is concerning as it demonstrates the importance of understanding what Diversity & Inclusion means. This group would be advisory in capacity and design, with enforcement resting in the hands of EGO, unless EGO becomes overwhelmed with complaints… at which time the board’s role will be reevaluated. EGO would handle enforcement of issues raised, separate from the Executive. This is because the Executive is one person that may or may not like enforcement of issues in this area. By leaving it with EGO, with give each issue a kind of tribunal approach with multiple minds and eyes looking at the issues at hand.

What checks and balances would be in place between all of the potential groups as well as the existing ones?

Captain Matt Evans

The Diversity Plan would be added to the overall legislative library of the club. As such, final sign-off comes after review and discussion in Command by the sitting Executive.

Thanks,
Jerome

Previous post | Parent | Reply | Start New Thread Next chronologically

Posts on Election Ship

RSS Feed