Posted by Matthew Bernardin in Question for the Candidates (All tickets)

Posted by Matthew Bernardin in Question for the Candidates (All tickets)

Posted by Dave Eads in Question for the Candidates (All tickets)
Hi guys!
I know most of you Candidates on at least a “We’ve written together” level, and I believe you all to be good and fair folk. Thus, I wanted to throw out a hypothetical scenario and see if we can get into some the “stickier” situations that sometimes arise in the course of running a ship, or a fleet, or the club itself; and how you’d likely react to such situations.

Hypothetical Part A:
Johnny is CO of a ship. He dislikes his XO, Bob and decides to remove Bob from that position. Bob, doesn’t like this idea, of course, and complains to the Fcomm.

Hypothetical Part B:
It comes to light that Johnny hasn’t been the best CO and Bob has been doing all the admin work on the ship. In fact, some of Bob’s counter-complaints are very legitimate.

Please describe what the behind the scenes dialogue might look like from your position? Also, your reasoning behind whatever decision(s) you might make?
To your mind, what is the proper reason, and when is the proper time to remove a CO from command?

Thank you for your time.
-Dave

Interesting question

First of all, as President I shouldn’t even be in this discussion. I would trust my FComm team to have conferred and handled this appropriately on their own and would expect to simply receive a brief behind the scenes about the scenario.

However for the sake of answering the question. Let’s assume that either the CO or XO in general has appealed the FComm’s decision regardless of what it was. As President I would discuss this with my VP and evaluate the original ruling of the FComm based on the following criteria.

1. Does the appeal allege any impropriety or unfair bias of the person who made the decision.
2. Has the person making the decision fairly listened and considered both sides of the argument and used logic to apply a consistent methodology to arriving at their ruling
3. Does the ruling fall in line with the FComm’s duty and responsbilities that being to do the best thing for the ship
4. Has the FComm used a fair and reasonable method or criteria to determine what is best for the ship

If at this point both myself and D concur that yes the FComm has enacted properly the appeal will be dismissed and the FComm’s decision upheld.

It is not my job to undermine or do my officer’s jobs for them. It is both mine and my VP’s job to ensure that my officers are doing theirs.

– Matt

Sorry I forgot to mention that if the answer is no the FComm has not acted properly then that is a whole different kettle of fish. Requiring a re-evaluation of all pertinent facts and an investigation into what parts and why the FComm hasn’t done their job. Dependant upon the answer to that review the outcome would be based upon the finding.

At a ship level options could including upholding or reversing the FComm’s decision, or even replacing the entire command staff of that ship if that is what the best outcome for the health of the ship was.

At a fleet level, dependant upon the reasons for the FComm failing to do their duty it could entail anything from a simple “yeah, this is how you could of handled that better mate” up to and removal as FComm. The key thing to note is, I wouldn’t fire someone for making a bad call or the wrong decision. God knows I’ve made a tonne of them.

– Matt/D

I know it’s late to chime in on this question, however, since I think it was directed at me, personally, it’s important to get the answer in. First of all, I think it’s important to acknowledge that many things go on ‘behind the scenes’ in this club. A lot of people work hard to keep it functioning and flowing in a positive direction—work the average player is never made aware of. Another point is that it is all volunteer. There is no physical compensation for the hours of thought and activity of said volunteer. But often, because a lot of the information gathered in an investigation is not made public knowledge, there is unwarranted backlash.

Case in point—earlier this year, as FComm3, I was tasked with mediating a complaint by a CO who wanted to remove his XO for clearly defined reasons. The XO didn’t want to be removed and cited reasons why the CO didn’t have a leg to stand on.

The first thing I did was to listen to the CO about what was going on. Then I went to the XO and listened to their side of things. It’s no great surprise that the two stories were the opposite of each other. I researched what I could with the ships’ records, and eventually found in favor of the CO. The XO appealed my decision (as was their right). I gave them 10 days to prepare their appeal, and stated, “you need to address the specific items your CO has brought against you.” I told them to include examples that would show me the CO was wrong in their claims.

The XO was late turning in their appeal, but I accepted it anyway. After reading through it, I began my own investigation by contacting members of the club the XO chose to name as proof of his arguments.

1. The XO did not bother to answer the specific reasons the CO wanted to let them go. Instead, they filled pages with quotes they found in conversations or reports, where someone said something positive about them. So, there was no supporting evidence that anything would be different if they stayed on the ship.

2. I contacted the members BOTH parties mentioned in their claims, to find out if those members would support what either of them said. I sent each one a questionnaire with the guarantee of anonymity. Everyone I contacted got back with me in less than 48 hours. It was the information I got from those members, that influenced my decision. Even though the XO and I were friends (IMO) and I knew the CO because we’ve both been around the club a long time, I had to disregard my personal feelings and let the evidence speak for itself.

Although some of what was said on each side was true, it turned out that both the CO and XO had given me some incorrect/false information to support their arguments. After weighing all the facts, I found in favor of the CO again. That decision cost me my friendship with the XO.

If I had to do it again, I wouldn’t change my decision because my judgement was fair and impartial. When put in a position where you are responsible for others, you have to leave your personal feelings out of it. I can do that, but I have found that not everyone can.

Thanks for the question,

D…
Matt/D