Posted by Rear Admiral Sarah Hemenway (Presidential Candidate) in Questions for the Candidates - Favoritism

Posted by H Levi Smiley in Questions for the Candidates - Favoritism

Posted by Rear Admiral Sarah Hemenway (Presidential Candidate) in Questions for the Candidates - Favoritism
Posted by… suppressed (1) by the Post Ghost! 👻
These are questions for all candidates.

On August 13, 2017, Jerome posted the following in Command as part of a longer post, stating that no one seemed to be getting that this is a problem:

“We tell people to do one thing and do another when someone in the President’s clique, or the FCOMM’s clique or the cool kids clique gets offended.”

In the post Jerome had also explained his perspective that this had been a problem for several years and had caused many members to quit.

Do you personally believe favoritism has been a significant problem in STF in the past couple years? Why or why not?

How will you avoid favoritism as an executive?

If you view cliques as a problem, are you more immune to their effects than others? If so, why?

Adam W.

I’ve only been back in STF for about 15 months now, but I don’t feel like favoritism has been a huge problem. I’ve seen some streaks of it here and there, but it’s nothing that really concerns me. To me, the best way to avoid cliques and favoritism is an issue is transparency. When the club can see the reasoning behind the decisions made, it provides (1) an important educational opportunity on “the way we do things” and (2) an important vector for feedback to be provided.

(snip)

When the club can see the reasoning behind the decisions made, it provides (1) an important educational opportunity on “the way we do things”

Do you feel there is ever a situation where the appropriate response is because that’s “the way we do things?” And if so, how does that instill in your electorate confidence that your administration will hear their concerns?

Thank you! And great job!

-Harley

Hi Harley,

In the context of Adam’s question, I mentioned “the way we do things” because being able to explain the why behind a decision is a valuable opportunity to educate people on the thought process that got to that decision (for instance, any history involved or any related bylaws or even just what logic got from point A to point B). To me, explaining that thought process is always the appropriate response. :)

What I think you’re asking, though, is about responding to a question of “why?” with an answer of “because I said so” or “because that’s how it’s always been done.” I find both of those answers equally disturbing and intolerable. Rob and I aren’t running because we’re on some quest for power; we’re doing it to help and we see a chance to use our talents and skills to do that. Not listening to the concerns of the membership is in direct conflict with that desire (and much of our platform).

• Sarah

Thank you!

-Harley