I have follow-up questions:

<snip>

Plus there are people who think that the way things are right now is all fine and dandy and there is fundamentally no need to change anything. I find this kind of thinking appalling, it’s anti star trek imo. The idea that things are as good right now as they will ever be is poppy cock. Human history shows us that things can always be refined and improved upon. Indeed Star Trek is all about striving for that better future and saying that things are as good as they could ever be right now is the intellectual equivalent to shoving your head in the sand and hoping that by ignoring time it will ignore you. But I’ve wandered off topic.

Who are these people that have said we don’t need to change anything? I’ve been in one form of leadership position in this club or another for the last 3-4 years, and I’m not aware of anyone saying nothing needs to change. In fact, over the last four years, the goal of most of the presidents have been to push the club (screaming and crying sometimes) into making changes to have a better impact on how the club addresses various issues, such as retention. Often the response is that we haven’t changed enough. Saying that there is a group of people who say nothing needs to change and then pointing out why that is wrong is a bit of a straw-man argument if such a group doesn’t actually exist.

So is there really a vocal group saying that?

<snip>

One of the major thrusts within my presidency if elected will be to work extensively with the Academy to revamp the ciriculumn to include more basic and extensive skills development as apart of the academy process in these three major areas. As apart of this I recently conducted a survey of Academy members who had graduated within the last three years asking them about their academy experience and how they thought it could be improved. 66% of people who took that survey wanted significantly more skills development of all three major areas and if you included the number of those who wanted some increase but were divided on how much that number rose to if memory serves more like 75-80%.

This would be a major change and it doesn’t require much if any in the way of legislative action.

How percentage of graduates responded to this survey? Was the Academy consulted about the survey or the results of the survey to see how perceptions compare to practice?

I know you and D haven’t had a huge amount of experience in senior positions in the Academy - and I don’t mean that as a criticism - we each have our own areas of specialty in where volunteer in STF. But in light of that, have you consulted with the Academy about proposed changes you want to make or want them to focus on, and whether some of the expectations are possible or now? You are saying that revamping the Academy curriculum will be a “major thrust” of your presidency - if it is that major, it may be helpful for voters to have a better idea of what you are proposing and what the pros and cons might be.

<snip>

I presented a statistical breakdown of retention for new members to the command group last term showing that we loose a decent percentage of all new applicants simply due to the time it takes PDept to process the applications and I theorised that it’s due to the fact that the stated “guaranteed” turn around time of 72 hours is letting us down. The result of that presentation to date to my knowledge was “hmm....interesting”. No change to officially stated processing times has been announced by PDept so far as I am aware.

I no longer have access to all the reports from this term until we have the WeBBspace archive, but either in the mid-term prez report or the PDept reports starting mid-term it was announced that (a) the PDept had managed to keep processing times below 36 hours (with most below 24 hours), and that if that was kept up the PDept was going to move to making 36 hours the new formal policy (which I anticipate is something coming next term for the PDept). For the remainder of the term, the PDept has kept average processing times as part of their monthly reports so that it can be kept track of. For the longest time, the PDept has used 72 hours as the absolute max, not the expectation. I believe it was Adam as Assistant Personnel Director this term that started introducing this information. My question from this point will come below.

<snip>

– Matt/D

Let me quote a few things from some earlier posts:

July 1st HQ post: But we believe it has been a long time since the members were offered something besides the same solutions to the same problems every term that never end up changing things. Doing nothing has accomplished exactly that—nothing. Utilising current thinking has done nothing either.

July 11 reply to a question to candidates: From the average members perspective the executive seems to run fairly well. It mostly just ticks over pushing the paperwork to cope with AWOLs and the ever changing personnel requirements from day to day… But behind the scenes the reality can be very different. I’ve likened stf government to a old drunk who stumbles about the place and occasionally falls down a hill and some days that’s accurate some days that’s harsh and some days that’s charitable.

It appears, Matt, that platform is based on the proposition that prior terms haven’t really even tried to engage in making changes to the club to address some of the major issues, and that that is what you are going to fix as President. This can be compared to other campaigns (both in this election or other elections) that suggest that they will be offering different or new ideas to address major issues. Your suggestion is that you are a different kind of candidate because no one has even been willing to do what you are campaigning to do. (Which goes to the point I made above that, in fact, the issue of reducing processing times has been one of the priorities in the PDept and that it was publicly announced what the new numbers were looking like and had not, in fact, been ignored).

Since I returned to the club approximately 4 years ago, the following individuals have been president: Thomas, Jack, Kat, Linds, Rob, Jeremy and me. Now, different people may criticize one or two or more of those terms. But this idea that none of these terms have involved real plans to make long-term improvements to the club and were just going from crisis to crisis seems, frankly, ludicrous to me.

So… that leads to my final question. Are you really suggesting that (a) none of these prior terms have put blood, sweat and tears into making long-term improvements to the club and (b) that your presidency would be fundamentally different than everyone that has come before you?

Daniel