Term Limits?

[Joshua Ridderhoff 873800]

Preamble: This is intended to be a hypothetical, philosophical discussion about this topic ONLY. If anybody starts getting personal or going off on wild conspiracy tangents, I'll be the first one to stand up & ask that this thread get locked. Got it? Good! On with the discussion...

 

In recent time, there have been a few threads that have raised concerns -- granted, by a few -- that certain staff may not be the best for the job, may only be there because of nepotism (aka "good ol' boys' club"), etc. I'm not here to agree or disagree with any of those posts: just using them to set the stage. Don't continue reading until you're clear about that point!

 

So, I was thinking lately: currently, VATUSA -- and even broader, VATSIM -- staff positions basically seem to be life appointments. Unless the person in the position wants to leave on their own accord, they're basically safe unless there is some gross misconduct at hand. Some people may be okay with that "executive" approach; others not.

 

But it got me to thinking, "What if VATSIM/VATUSA staff positions had term limits? Would that quell any of this ridiculous banter?"

 

I mean, it does kinda make sense, to me anyway. Nobody here is truly "working" for anybody else: nobody earns a salary, nobody here is under contract. But, the people responsible for running VATSIM/VATUSA basically are in an ivory tower. Sure, there is the DCRM to work issues. But, you kind of have the same problem there: the people are appointed by the same other people that are also immune and the VATSIM/VATUSA community at-large have absolutely no say or means to democratically voice their concerns. When it comes down to it, it's a decision/process completely internal to VATSIM/VATUSA and that has the potential to incite -- rightly or wrongly -- discussions like those we've seen lately.

 

On the other hand, if VATSIM/VATUSA staff positions had designated term limits -- for example, if VATUSA1 was a one year appointment with a maximum possibility of three consecutive terms -- then you start to take away that "ivory tower" feel that might put off some folks.

 

Even more, I wonder if -- while there still needs to be an executive decision-making/appointment process (I don't think that the general VATUSA/VATSIM public on its own has near enough insight to "elect" staff members) -- there should be some sort of public "confirmation" process wherein the respective public can vote to affirm the choice the executive committe has made.

 

It's not a radical "democratic" change, but it might just be enough for the "public" to say that at least they had some say in confirming/reconfirming the person to the post. Plus, it would be a heck of an easy way for VATUSA/VATSIM to quash discussions like those recently by simply saying, "This person is the person the majority of VATXXX confirmed. If you don't like it, make sure you participate in the next confirmation process."

 

Again, this is NOT a reflection of my personal opinion of the merit (or lack thereof) of any recent discussions, rather an attempt at a respectful public debate at a way to make VATSIM/VATUSA an even better place than it is. What's your thought?

[Jay Shepherd 919640]

Agreed!

 

Okay so I don't have much to add... if it's good enough for the USA it's good enough for VATUSA.

[Nicholas Bartolotta 912967]

Everytime a person is hired into a new position, it involves training them and getting them setup in that position. While I agree your idea would be nice, I don't think it's very practical for VATUSA...

 

Also, how long are we talking time-wise per person in a position? I'm not sure I'd work as hard knowing whatever project I was in the middle of would need to be handed off to someone else in x months.

 

2¢

[Mike Cassel 849958]

I think that term limits are not only needed for VATSIM and VATUSA staff positions, but also for ARTCC chief spots(ok, ATM). Without naming names, there have been some chiefs that seem to disappear or not do enough to run thier ARTCC, but aren't guilty of any gross misconduct. If we had a 2-year limit for ARTCC chiefs, non-renewable, then I think a lot of ARTCC's would be better off.

 

As for staff positions, although there may be training involved, I think a 2-year term would be sufficient to train appropriately and at the same time keep responsibility among the apppointed staff member.

[Donno Cole 813628]

Perhaps the model in place at several other volunteer organizations would fit best here. A professional organization I belong to has a series of Presidents. There is 'the' President, who has actually been a president for 5 years, and then three vice presidents. Each year the 2nd vice president is moved up to the President position automatically, and the 3rd VP goes to 2nd, and 4th to 3rd...The only elections held each year are for the 4th vice president position, the membership knowing that they are in essence electing the next president, 5 years early.

 

The purpose of this set up is to ensure continuity of leadership. It gives the current leader the time to work on their agenda, while still allowing for the future leaders to be involved, learn the ropes, get acquainted, etc. It really is an ideal set up for an organization like VATSIM/VATUSA where that continuity is important. Projects would not be abandoned mid-stream simply because the term expired. There would be plenty of time to transfer ownership of that project to the next person in line for the appointment.

 

While I am a HUGE proponent of the democratic process, and I believe elections have their place...I'm not quite sure this community is ready to be responsible for electing it's leaders. Putting a leader into place is a big responsibility. It takes knowing that person both personally (to a degree) and professionally. It takes understanding their leadership style and agenda. I'm not sure our environment gives us adequate opportunity to learn those things in sufficient quantity to hold an election. That having been said, I do however think that an informal; perhaps even non-binding vote of the membership for a new leader would be beneficial. A short list of qualified candidates can be developed by the board of governors, or what have you...those candidates could post bio's, platforms, etc and then the membership could cast an informed vote. It would give the leadership an idea of who resonates with the membership in general and lend to their decision making process. It would give the incoming leader a validation previously not seen on the network. A good thing in my opinion.

[Joshua Ridderhoff 873800]

Mike,

 

I agree, and my idea for term limits would include at least down to ATMs (possibly even DATMs/TAs).

 

Donno,

 

If you notice in my post, my idea was specifically NOT to have elections. I agree that this community would never be able to "elect" a person to high-level VATUSA/VATSIM positions without resorting to anarchy.

 

What I instead proposed for discussion was a "confirmation process" where there is still an "executive decision" made to select the person for the post -- just like today -- but then the membership at large gets a yea/nay vote to confirm that single candidate. If confirmed by a majority (simple or 2/3, I personally think 2/3 majority, but maybe a simple majority would be enough), the person stays. If not, the executive committe would select a new candidate, then restart the confirmation process for that candidate.

[Brandon Grchan 925585]

In my opinion its a bad idea....

 

Yes, there may be some who dont do their job, but thats what jobs like VATUSA1 are for. To make sure people do that job. Putting a limit on the amount of time a ATM could serve is a bad idea. You could come across the best ATM one has ever seen and he may be doing wonders. Then all of a sudden you want to stop his work and put someone less qualified in the spot?

[Jeffery Williams 849847]

Voting for who to put into a position will just turn it into a huge popularity contest. I don't think that will solve anything.

[Andrew Musselman]

In my opinion its a bad idea....

 

Yes, there may be some who dont do their job, but thats what jobs like VATUSA1 are for. To make sure people do that job. Putting a limit on the amount of time a ATM could serve is a bad idea. You could come across the best ATM one has ever seen and he may be doing wonders. Then all of a sudden you want to stop his work and put someone less qualified in the spot?

 

I actually agree with Brandon. There are some great ATM's out there and it would be a shame to see their work just stop. I say they do their job until VATUSA's Regional Directors and the rest of the gang dictate they are not capable of doing it.

[Joshua Ridderhoff 873800]

Jeffery,

 

Think you misunderstood. Once again, I am NOT advocating or proposing "elections."

 

There is a VAST difference between having a campaign & m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive "elections" versus a "confirmation vote" on a single candidate that has already been chosen.

 

Brandon,

 

I think you might have missed my original post. It's not just about ATMs. All I was adding in that later post was that the plan could be extended to ATMs -- possibly.

 

The core idea I was floating for discussion was for VATUSA/VATSIM staff. Or, to springboard off of your example, what happens if VATUSA1 (regardless of the name of the person that is in the job at the time) is the one that isn't performing or is performing contrary to public opinion? Who do you go to to get VATUSA1 replaced in that case? VATGOV1? What if -- again, regardless of the name of the person in the postion at the time -- VATGOV1 is the one not being responsive?

 

IMHO, term limits -- backed up by public CONFIRMATION (NOT ELECTION... there is a difference) -- are the best way to protect against that.

[Brandon Grchan 925585]

Jeffery,

 

Think you misunderstood. Once again, I am NOT advocating or proposing "elections."

 

There is a VAST difference between having a campaign & m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive "elections" versus a "confirmation vote" on a single candidate that has already been chosen.

 

Brandon,

 

I think you might have missed my original post. It's not just about ATMs. All I was adding in that later post was that the plan could be extended to ATMs -- possibly.

 

The core idea I was floating for discussion was for VATUSA/VATSIM staff. Or, to springboard off of your example, what happens if VATUSA1 (regardless of the name of the person that is in the job at the time) is the one that isn't performing or is performing contrary to public opinion? Who do you go to to get VATUSA1 replaced in that case? VATGOV1? What if -- again, regardless of the name of the person in the postion at the time -- VATGOV1 is the one not being responsive?

 

IMHO, term limits -- backed up by public CONFIRMATION (NOT ELECTION... there is a difference) -- are the best way to protect against that.

 

 

Well first off I just used ATM's as an example. replace ATM with whatever you would like it to be. Now reagarding VATSIMX being unresponsive, the chances of that are SLIM to none. I dont think RJ or anyone else up there would allow it. BTW this isnt a democratic service. If you dont like the way its being run go ahead and voice your opinion but unless your paying for it I wouldnt expect it to be.

[Brandon Grchan 925585]

Voting for who to put into a position will just turn it into a huge popularity contest. I don't think that will solve anything.

 

And I agree

[Joshua Ridderhoff 873800]

Just for those who are "governmentally challenged" here, let me give a practical example of the difference between a "confirmation" and an "election" so nobody (else) misunderstands what I am floating for discussion here:

 

Election:

Some number of candidates with differing viewpoints stage a campaign. At some point, the voting public votes for their favorite candidate. The candidate with the most votes at the end of the election wins. This is NOT a good idea in my opinion and NOT what I'm discussing.

 

Confirmation:

A ruling body/executive committee selects who they feel is the best applicant for a job. For example, VATSIM picks who they consider to be "best qualified" from a possible list of people who have applied for the VATUSA1 job. Once this executive selection is made, the public (in this case, the membership of VATUSA) is asked to confirm this selection. They have a ballot which simply asks "Do you confirm the choice of ________ made by VATSIM BoG to serve in the position of VATUSA1? Yes { } No { }."

 

In the case of a "confirmation" there is only the option to agree or disagree with the selection of the candidate that has already been made. You don't vote for anybody else. There's no chance to write in your favorite. You are just voting "Yes" or "No" for the choice that has already been made.

 

Clear?

[John Speranza 908835]

Voting for who to put into a position will just turn it into a huge popularity contest. I don't think that will solve anything.

 

And I agree

 

Ditto.

 

I mean, let's see what would happen. Everyone would want TGIF back and vote for Lance! Uh oh, I feel fallout coming.

 

 

Just kidding

 

 

Yes...KIDDDING....No, I'm not being serious. I'm KIDDDING.

 

This is for all those who won't read beyond my first sentence, and quote me.

 

Kinda like the coffee cup that says "THIS BEVERAGE IS EXTREMELY HOT."

 

Well, duh?

 

Ok, off topic now. Time to go take my meds...(Happily strolls down the hallway whistling... )

[Andrew Musselman]

Also, the VATSIM GOV'T For the most part they have all been here since the founding of VATSIM. This is their network, we are just guests to their network.... So I really don't think we should have a say in what goes on up there.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

Also, the VATSIM GOV'T For the most part they have all been here since the founding of VATSIM.

 

Not true, check your data.

[Andrew Musselman]

Kyle:

For the mostpart they all have been here if not on the staff here as users at VATSIM since the beginning.

 

 

Also, looking at what Jeff said as a popularity contest, of course that's how it would end up being. Just like a high school president election. (stereotyping I know.)

[Timothy Boger 942264]

The day this becomes a democracy they'll let you know.

 

(No offense to our friends in high places. VATSIM is a republic!)

[Jay Shepherd 919640]

I think you guys are missing what Josh is saying here.... okay now I'll spell it out for you literally....

 

T-H-I-S W-O-U-L-D N-O-T B-E A V-O-T-E (This is would not be a vote)

 

This is a confirmation there is a big difference... some religions/groups have these all the time. The big man stands up and says: "This is who I think will do the best job, if you agree raise your hand."

 

Even if more people confirm in the negative it doesn't stop the person from being selected it just means that most people don't agree.

 

Josh also did not state anything about VatGov having term limits. They are the founders and they pay the bills... He was speaking specifically to VATSIM/VATUSA positions.

 

Now you brought up this point: "Well what if he's doing the best so far, we don't want him to be stopped"

Now I reply: "How do you know that someone can't do it better?"

 

I think term limits are a wonderful idea. Maybe it's just me but Checks and Balances seem to go over pretty well in other areas.

[Ross Carlson]

The core idea I was floating for discussion was for VATUSA/VATSIM staff. Or, to springboard off of your example, what happens if VATUSA1 (regardless of the name of the person that is in the job at the time) is the one that isn't performing or is performing contrary to public opinion? Who do you go to to get VATUSA1 replaced in that case? VATGOV1? What if -- again, regardless of the name of the person in the postion at the time -- VATGOV1 is the one not being responsive?

 

Would term limits really make a difference in terms of being able to replace someone who is not doing their job? Seems to me, a term limit would only allow us to say "well, at least he'll be gone in the fall of 2008". If we really wanted to create a system that allowed for non-performers to be replaced, seems we'd need not only term limits, but an impeachment process as well. Perhaps this already exists behind closed doors? I don't know.

 

Note that I'm not suggesting a democracy either. I don't think the general VATSIM membership is "in tune" with the core workings of VATSIM/VATUSA enough to be able to make such decisions. To make matters worse, if an election was held, the "ignorant m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]es" would vote anyway, just for the sake of voting, without making an informed vote.

 

This is a confirmation there is a big difference... some religions/groups have these all the time. The big man stands up and says: "This is who I think will do the best job, if you agree raise your hand."

 

Even if more people confirm in the negative it doesn't stop the person from being selected it just means that most people don't agree.

 

Then what's the point?

[Jeffery Williams 849847]

Then what's the point?

 

My thoughts exactly.

[Tom Meyer 944876]

Then what's the point?

 

My thoughts exactly.

Throw a X3 from me on there.

 

 

Now you brought up this point: "Well what if he's doing the best so far, we don't want him to be stopped"

Now I reply: "How do you know that someone can't do it better?"

So what do you do when that second person turns it into a place that nobody wants to fly? Do you kick him out, and the elect yet a third person?

[Brandon Grchan 925585]

Then what's the point?

 

My thoughts exactly.

Throw a X3 from me on there.

 

 

Now you brought up this point: "Well what if he's doing the best so far, we don't want him to be stopped"

Now I reply: "How do you know that someone can't do it better?"

So what do you do when that second person turns it into a place that nobody wants to fly? Do you kick him out, and the elect yet a third person?

 

Make it 4

[Scott Lansing 953481]

Off topic, disregard.

Edited April 6, 2006 at 06:32 AM by Guest

[Jeffery Williams 849847]

 

What I see from reading these forums is some people becoming too emotionally involved in the hobby. For those people, you really need to take a step back and evaluate your priorities. This is supposed to be fun. I can't believe some of the things I read in these posts. For one thing, I don't know how some of you guys can log hundreds, if not thousands of hours flying and/or controlling, come back here and post several hundred messages and still find time to go work, school, sleep, and spend time with your family. There's an old saying, "A little goes a long way."

 

For those who have been a part of this hobby for the last 7 years or more, it is easy to become quite involved in it. I agree with the principal of what you are saying though.