Posted by Russell Watt in Office of the President - Edict 5

Posted by Vice Admiral Jack D (President) in Office of the President - Edict 5
Edict #5

“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

Background. Before I get into the substance of this edict, I just wanted to articulate the context and the reasoning for it. Unlike the famous quote that I’ve used above, one of the challenges we have in the club is balancing the needs of the many with the needs of the few. RL plays havoc with all of our lives, often at short notice, or in a way that we don’t realise how much pressure we’re under until something gives way. That sometimes means that we cannot dedicate the time to the club that we would normally do so. Being candid about my performance in STF over the last 6 weeks, I’ve been very much focused on a major work project and some personal things that have meant I’ve not given the club as much attention as I should have done.

We could take the Star Trek approach, and be brutal with AWOL limits across the club. We’d have a nice green Master Roster, although we would probably reduce the club size by a significant proportion. We would also be sending out a message that RL doesn’t come first, and that we don’t care about individual members’ morale. I think we would all agree that is opposite of what we believe as a club. At best, we could lose a very capable individual who has been a stalwart of the club over a rough patch in RL; at worst, we disenfranchise a section of the club, and make it more difficult for members to be honest about the support they need.

But we also need to make sure that our club’s role playing areas remain healthy, and that the members enjoy role playing on them. That can be difficult to achieve if one of the Command Staff isn’t able to invest in it as much as they would like to. So, we need to find a way to give individuals some latitude for RL, whilst ensuring someone is there to pick up their responsibilities ready for them when they return.

I eluded in the ongoing fleet discussions that we don’t have a process for supporting COs and XOs when RL flares up. I do believe that is worth us discussing, either as part of that discussion or separately. However, there is a particular ship that I think will benefit from the temporary assignment of an acting CO for a month, who can drive some of the OOC admin bits forward in terms of recruitment, and enable a GMT to be placed on the ship. This will also give that CO a bit more of a softer landing back into STF, rather than feeling they have a mountain to climb.

I have discussed this with the ship’s CO, XO and FComm. I think the three of us would agree that, as a club, we need to come together to support each other, and I am hoping this is one of the ways we can do this that balances the needs of the many with the needs of the few. I am more than happy to have a discussion about whether this is something we should be doing, and whether it needs more rigour to it, but politely request that we do that when we have that discussion on supporting COs and XOs.

Edict. Commodore Kevin Sawyer is temporarily assigned as the acting Commanding Officer (aCO) of the USS Manhattan, for an initial period of 30 days; this may be extended by agreement of the CO, FComm and President to no more than a total of 90 days. James Sinclair remains the Commanding Officer (CO).

Kevin may be released from the role prior to 30 days provided both FComm and CO agree.

Yours,

Jack
STF President
21 October 2024

Ah, so this is why Kevin returned? (Just joking, please don’t take this comment seriously)

Congrats Kevin (you can take this comment seriously!)

Russell

I understand the impetus behind this: giving a CO breathing room for RL, and not overwhelming an XO who has a lot on their plate, so we’re appointing someone to administer the ship. I applaud the idea and the effort.

But I am not sure this can be done in the way this has been phrased.

First, I do not think the term “acting CO” should be used here (at least currently). The term is used within FCOMM and has prior history of use which is not this, and also does not need to be appointed by the President (the XO automatically assumes the position of acting CO when the CO is on LOA or declared AWOL). So Kevin cannot be appointed as acting CO - the only person who can be aCO is the XO.

Second, by FCOMM, the appointment of a CO by the President removes the previous CO; so appointing Kevin as CO automatically removes James as CO.

I’m unaware of any precedent, nor mechanism in bylaw, for appointing a third-party as acting CO while leaving the CO in place and the XO not assuming the aCO position.

MOO implies that individual arrangements such as this can be made; but does not expand the powers of the President in designing these arrangements beyond those already granted.

I think this is a good idea, in fact one we could codify, giving the Prez (or even just FComm) the ability to appoint someone as aCO, though I worry this has the potential to undermine XOs, whose primary responsibility per FCOMM is to be aCO in the absence of the CO. As STF bylaws currently stand, however, the President may not appoint an acting CO; and cannot appoint someone as CO with the prior CO actually retaining that position. I think the best way to accomplish this is either to appoint Kevin CO and state that the position will be available to James when he returns within X time frame (which I recall being done in the past); or we submit a bill proposal codifying this ability (I am happy to help draft the text for this).

In addition, I find ambiguity in the actual edict.

this may be extended by agreement of the CO, FComm and President to no more than a total of 90 days.

Would CO here be the original CO, or the aCO? What happens at the end of the aCO appointment period?

Nathan
TECH Lead/EGO
This is what happens when you’re a lawful good English-major-turned-programmer - and yes, I hate it too