Posted by Nicholas Villarreal in Questions for the Candidates - Archer/Bongiorno - Cabinet Streamlining
Hello,

In your discussion of how to rework the requirements for how many people are needed as part of an administration, you suggested the idea of merging the Engineering Department and the Gamemaster Department into an omnibus department, albeit the nomenclature was somewhat vague. I would like you to address a few things:

1. The reasoning you provided behind combining the two was in the inability to fill the role of Engineering Director, and in general to keep the Engineering Department active. None of the issues are related to the GMDept, and moreover, the role of EDept in the club is more passive in general than GMDept (at least right now). Why would turning the Gamemaster Department, which is active and provides a necessary function in the club, into a subordinate department under an omnibus be the best solution to this problem?

Hey Nick, thanks for your questions. So the merging idea not only would allow both areas to continue to do their functions as now, whether actively like GMDept or passively like EDept. But it would allow us opportunities for exchange and consistency of lore and information to occur too, not to mention more eyes on any submissions to either department for reviews. By this I mean it will hopefully create more opportunities to get people who are say submitting a race/power submission to maybe go ‘oh hey maybe that custom race i just did for federation membership could have a support ship made up too!’ this too could be something just off the top of my head that could be said during said race/power reviews. Again the focus here is encouraging community inclusion and participation. So I do believe this is one way to go this way in doing so.

1. You state in your post:
   “So at a minimum a president would only need to fill 3 roles a term vs 6 as now (edir/aedir/dockmaster/gmdir/agmdir/archivist).”
   Technically, this would reduce the President’s overall responsibility for finding Cabinet members from two to one (RefDir or whatever instead of EDir and GMDir). The respective QDirs are currently the ones responsible for finding their assistants, in whatever manner they see fit (albeit applications are the typical method as of late). Additionally, the Archivist and the Librarian are record-keepers, and are roles which neither OGRE or ENERGIE mandates, but rather serve as a way to allow a QDir to not get caught up in a large amount of data entry. This belies a mentality that the President has authority to appoint an entire department’s staff. Especially if you were one of the people, or the only person, to be writing new bylaws to replace ENERGIE and OGRE, you’re insinuating that the President would have the authority, at least within the new structure, to not only select a QDir, but also subordinates, in the department which you suggest would replace EDept and GMDept.
   Is this an issue of poor wording?
   If not, why do you state that it is the President’s responsibility to find individuals to fill assistant roles instead of QDirs, when both OGRE and ENERGIE explicitly state that the QDirs are responsible for appointing their assistants?

So I can see upon reflection how this would be probably confusing and was poorly worded on my part. The assistant roles would still be there and chosen by the Dept Directors. The roles of archivist and librarian would remain but rolled into the new reference department. Again they could either be separate people as often is now, or accepted as a job for the QDirs if they so choose. So to clarify I meant that the President only is choosing the Ref Dir, EDir and GMDir roles. Any assistant roles would be at the needs of the QDirs.

1. Would this actually solve the problem, or would it simply be shoving the issue down a level so that now a QDir has to find an Engineering Assistant (as the role of overseeing EDept would no longer be a QDir role)?

Thank you for your responses.

Nicholas Villarreal

So before I answer this 3rd part I want to see what you reply with to my above clarification Nick. Thank you for your question and time, sorry my original wording was confusing, I hope this fixed it up

Robert Archer