Term Limits?

[Scott Lansing 953481]

I understand and I edited my message as it was off-topic.

 

I come here for something fun and interesting. But to see all the disdain among some members turns me off. I didn't mean to imply that if you have "X" number of VATSIM hours logged there was something wrong with you. There's nothing wrong with being p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ionate about something. I've found myself in similar situations and I've found it helpful to just take a step away. That's all.

 

I apologize for going off topic, hence the edit.

[Ross Carlson]

...and still find time to go work, school, sleep, and spend time with your family.

 

How do we do it? Simple ... combine them! Let's see, VATSIM is work for me because I'm a professional programmer and I write software for VATSIM. VATSIM is school for me because I learn so much about ATC and aviation. Sleep? Ya, I've dozed off to the lull of my engines while on a long cruise. Family? My 3 year old loves to sit on my lap and fly the sim. That's how some of us find time to do all of those things AND participate in VATSIM.

[Donno Cole 813628]

My cat loves it when I fly, she can lay on my feet for hours on end without being disturbed and she loves the rumble of the sub woofer I guess that is my only family to include...

[Richard Green 810012]

I have a cat named CI CI... and if you don't get it I am sorry.

 

I know at least one other VATUSA member has the same aidiction to bad TV as I do.

[Josh Hjemvick 811983]

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.

 

As if some recent nominations, and [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignments isn't a popularity contest already?

 

As far as a term, I like it. But only at the VATUSA level. There also needs to be a removal system to get undue individuals out of their staff positions.

 

I will leave it at that.

[Richard Green 810012]

Josh - there is a removal system...

 

If you don't like.... ummm lets just throw out a name... Jeff Turner is doing, then you complain to Todd Cox, if you still don't get a good answer then you go to the EC, if you still don't like the answer and you still demand justice, you go to the BoG.

 

That being said, do I think VATUSA staff or EC or BoG is a popularity contest? No, but the people who are visible and try to make a difference tend to move up in the ranks. If someone doesn't like how things run, I was always taught " _ _ _ _ or get off the pot ", granted that shows my age a bit, but there you have it.

 

Its just like my view of the US political system, if you don't like how your representatives do their job, you vote them out, or you run against them.

 

I don't think I agree 100% with anyone, be it Jeff, Todd or even Richard Jenkins... that’s what makes the world a wonderful place (if you choose to be that way) I can disagree with how someone does things, yet still remain an agreeable person. Shooting venom, calling names, making idle threats do nothing but lessen whatever position a person has.

[Josh Hjemvick 811983]

So that's all we have to do?

 

[Matthew Kramer]

Personally, I agree with Mr. Green. We are not told to be quiet about our concerns with VATSIM government. (However, if you are the only one who thinks a certain way, others will voice their opinions against yours.)

As far as term limits, I fail to see a point. While they can be helpful in big government, in this smaller versions they will not help move things along at all.

[Jeff Turner]

deleted

[Josh Hjemvick 811983]

Personally, I agree with Mr. Green. We are not told to be quiet about our concerns with VATSIM government. (However, if you are the only one who thinks a certain way, others will voice their opinions against yours.)

As far as term limits, I fail to see a point. While they can be helpful in big government, in this smaller versions they will not help move things along at all.

 

I can't even reply to this with an honest response.

 

How sad is that? Two people have recently been suspended for their different viewpoints. Just sad.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

 

How sad is that? Two people have recently been suspended for their different viewpoints. Just sad.

 

If it was just differing viewpoints we would still be hearing from them. It isn't; it's the manner in which they chose to manifest those viewpoints. Much like we value free speech in this country (USA), if you are not responsible with how you do it you will wind up in jail. Disagree with the president? Write a letter to your editor, carry a placard on a street corner, run against him, but try to blow him up or even make a threat against him and you're off to jail. With the right of free speech comes a sigificant responsibility to use it wisely and appropriately.

 

How sad is it that you would underplay what occured with a statement that isn't factual. It is good that people like yourself aren't afraid to speak your mind but you do yourself no credit nor credibility when you make statements like that.

 

Kyle

[Richard Jenkins]

How sad is that? Two people have recently been suspended for their different viewpoints. Just sad.

 

What two people have been suspended for differing points of view?

 

Richard

[Nicholas Fredrich 827138]

What two people have been suspended for differing points of view?

 

I count ZERO. Are you sure thats why they were suspended? Do you have all the facts? I dont think anybody here does except the parties directly involved. Stop jumping to conlusions and adding kerosene to the fire.

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

I feel that there is no need for such a term system. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to run a Democratic system in VATUSA, or anywhere else in VATSIM. As earlier stated, there is no way to campaign, people aren't well known publicly, there aren't debates, and there are no guarantees a good portion of the VATUSA members would have access and give their input.

 

There are also only small chances that enough people would want to take the time to campaign and do such things, just to get elected to a position where they will spend a year, or two years, or some short period of time.

 

Jeff Turner recently reported there are somewhere around 12,000 VATUSA members, 1,230 of them being active controllers. 12,000 is a brilliant number, but are the majority of these pilots really considering themselves a member of VATUSA, with Jeff Turner being their regional Director? Or do they just like flying in U.S. airspace? This section I'm curious about, because it does affect my next section here shortly. This is not a statement of fact, but an inquiry.

 

So next, let's look at this more realistically. Democracy wouldn't really work, but the proposed system here doesn't do appear to do anything either. So someone is appointed as VATUSA1, and the membership "confirms" this. A confirmation is just what it means, an APPROVAL of something or someone. Do you remember Bush's appointments for the Supreme Court? Congress made an inquiry hearing for Samuel Alito, and then voted their approval or no approval. In such the case, the "Confirmation of the Supreme Court appointment" ended up p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing Congress. Someone in an earlier reply said that the Confirmation does not allow for a rejection of the appointment, so therefore, it is not a Confirmation vote anymore, and it serves no purpose, except to judge the popular feelings about the appointment.

 

Okay, so that's not going to serve any purpose as outlined. "So Steve [you sigh and roll your eyes], what do you think will work?"

 

Well, right now, we do have, however intricate and unreliable, a system of removal. Like Richard said, go to each successive superior. That is clearly flawed and insufficient. We can continue with the current system of appointments, but have the allotment for a "Vote of No Confidence" or "Vote of Confidence". This would need to be an official and regulated system. To include VATUSA1 in this method, VATNA1 would have to be the primary receipt of a grievance against VATUSA1, and it would be best conducted by VATNA1. Any other grievances within the USA would remain with VATUSA1, or an appropriated USA Regional Manager.

 

Now, because we have 1230, or 12000 members, however you would want to extend this power to (just controllers? both pilots and controllers?), I would say, some number or group of people would have to lodge their reasonable, logical grievance(s) through the VATUSA website. Let's say 30 people must concur (hold that in relation to 1200, or 12000 even), write out an official complaint, and request for a Vote of No Confidence. Within three weeks, a Vote of No Confidence must be advertised and held with the delegated members (pilots? controllers?). If the current leadership loses the Confidence, he is removed from his position and replaced.

 

If he maintains the Confidence, he retains his position. Again just arbitrary: Eight or ten weeks must then p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] before re-submitting the same or overlapping grievances (Grievance "A" has three main points, but the leader maintains the Confidence. Grievance "B", issued a few days after the first Vote, must not contain any of the same issues or points in "A" to be considered. If it does, then "B" is null and void.). The leader who was voted on may feel compelled morally to resign, should he wish to.

 

If the person voted on maintains his position, and acts out in aggression to those who brought suit against him, can have another grievance brought against him. There could be no "preference" or black balling of those who bring suit against a leader, because then they just have a new suit on their hands. The people don't condone injustice, and so those who are wrongly discriminated against after submitting a vote can use that against the leader.

 

So, who would this apply to? This could apply to all ATMs, DATMs, TAs, USA Managers, and the USA Management. Now, I arbitrarily stated the number 30 earlier as a requirement of concurrence. Perhaps there should be two different levels, an ARTCC level (where 15 people would have to lodge a complaint), and then a Regional level (where 30 or more people would have to lodge the complaint).

 

One other rule would be that: Only members of an ARTCC would be able to call for a Vote in their ARTCC (i.e. Members of the ZOB ARTCC wouldn't be able to move for a Vote for a ZBW staff member). Likewise, only ARTCC members would be able to vote on a staff member of their ARTCC. Visiting Controllers would would not be considered members of an ARTCC. For the ARTCC level, the same time minimum would have to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] before re-submitting the same, or overlapping grievance.

 

If a minimum amount of voter turnout is not met, then a Vote can be dismissed, and re-issued per the guidelines above for re-submission (i.e. There must be at least two-hundred people who vote (out of the 1200) on a USA leader, or at least twenty people who vote, for an ARTCC leader).

 

What do you think of that?

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

Let's suppose 10 people hated a VATUSA leader so much they demanded their removal. That is less than 1% of the 1230 active controllers. Not even close to a majority. Would we allow a less than 1% voice, even if it is loud, cause the removal of a leader? I doubt it.

 

If you have been around the FS business very long, and have been or recruited leaders, you quickly find out there are a lot of people who will raise their hand to get the chance to gain a title and be 'important'. You will find much less of them that will actually do the work required to maintain the position. Term limits may have the effect of removing that rare quality individual who is doing thier job for no good reason other than the clock has ticked by and replacing them with someone who may be popular because they ar evocal in the forums but won't do the work.

 

I recommend not adopting term limits. There is already a grievence process in place but it also won't respond to a less than 1% calling for removal and that is how it should be. A small yet vocal minority cannot be allowed rule the roost. If they have evidence of misdeeds of the person in an office, that is a different matter than "I don't like VATUSAXX" and the process can and will address it. It is also not a transparent process, as it should not be, to protect the dignity of the individuals involved. So we should not be expecting to see the details of anyone's disaplinary process, only the results. It is also natural in the leadership roles that you will have to make choices that will piss off someone and we can't have that someone being able to unseat a leader just because they don't agree with them; can you imagine what this organization would be like if that were the case?

 

If we feel that any particular organization is so flawed that it can't police itself, we should go find another organization to join. When was the last time you saw an employee fire their boss because they didn't like their boss and worked to undermine them and have them removed? For the most part in employment situations you either find another boss to work for by applying for internal jobs or change companies if you think the company is overly flawed.

[Joshua Ridderhoff 873800]

Steve,

 

Glad to see there are a few other level heads out there! By the way, I don't for the life of me understand where people ever came up with this idea of an "election" -- if you read my original post at the top of page 1, I clearly stated this would not be an election because I agreed that campaigning, aka "popularity contests" would just end in the same mindless filibuster that normally goes on around here.

 

Instead, I was discussing the idea of a binding confirmation process (I never suggested that the "confirmation vote" be ignorable, so don't know where that idea came from either) greatly similar to the Congressional senate confirmation process. A person is chosen by an executive committee, a yea/nay vote on that one candidate is taken, if there's a majority approval met, great. If not, the executive committe picks a new candidate. Simple as that.

 

Amazing the words people have been putting in my mouth around here the past few days. As Bill O'Reilly might say, "Kool Aid Alert"

 

I don't think VATUSA -- not even worrying about VATSIM(GOV) -- is ever going to be ready for democracy on par with an election. But I still think that some form of representation -- such as a confirmation, aka "vote of confidence/no confidence," system -- is practical and reasonable. Why? I'll explain:

 

-It leaves the selection process in exactly the same hands it is in today,

-It DOES NOT involve campaigns or elections, and

-It DOES allow -- anonymously -- public "confidence" in appointed leadership to be voiced.

 

But, I think the root of the problem is that a lot of the "public" is going to be naiive and come into this discussion with pre-conceived notions that this is just another attempt to quash some supposed dictatorship (LOL) and that we're all just a bunch of hate-mongers. And to them I say "Let them drink Kool Aid!"

 

Alright... enough bloviating. Back to things that really matter -- like PHP! (Man I need a life)

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

Well,

 

My proposal is offered as a compromise of both sides. There are those who attain a management position, and then don't do anything once they are appointed. There are also those that do their jobs and work their butts off. If you want to take my suggestion to a more serious level, you would need to say something like: To initiate a Vote of Confidence, have 600 of the 1200 members formally put that in writing, put the arguements clearly, logically, and responsibly in writing and sign the 600 names to it.

 

In my example, yes, I used the small number of 30, but just as an arbitrary example. That is unrealistic (relative to 1200 or more) in the numbers of voters we would need.

 

But the question of the leadership needs to be addressed more realistically as well. 1,230 Controllers, indirectly managed by VATUSA, directly managed by 20 ARTCCs. I don't know what's on the plate of the VATUSA staff, but dealing with activity and leadership, something doesn't seem to connect. Either our leadership is active, with some holes in it, or our leadership is inactive, with some who are very active. I'm not sure what to think on that, because I can't tell either way. I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that we have an overall active staff, because that's what I'm told is stressed by the current administration. How they are going about that, I do not know. How they enforce it, I do not know. There's a lot of constitutional convention that we run by here (we don't have tons of written rules and laws; we don't have a written constitution for our leadership and how they have to run their positions). That is something we must accept.

 

On that, though, we need to logically look at all the duties a VATUSA staff member may have. VATUSA1 cannot day by day check in on leadership activity. He cannot do all the monitoring that is required. He has appointed Regional AT Directors to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ist him in monitoring ARTCC operations. But look at all of their duties. They've got a lot, just by themselves, across five to eight ARTCCs. Perhaps, [insert groan, anger, and rolling eyes], there needs to be a new department of VATUSA management created to solely review and monitor ARTCC websites, information accessibility, informtation presentation, and ARTCC Staff involvement and activity.

 

Both of those issues, I think actually overlap, and thusly should be monitored together. A VATUSA review team needs to get together to re-review each ARTCC (Check how old the ARTCC Evaluations are), and monitor staff activity levels, and receive reports from ARTCC staff members.

 

While that team does that, Regional AT Directors can continue doing what they do, which is to actually monitor ARTCC operations, rules, and procedures, as well as Staff appointments/resignations, and other regional matters.

 

If that review team stops doing their jobs and reporting to USA1 and 2, those two step in to fix that problem. I didn't mean to undermine our staff positions and leaders, but realistically, there are just too many people and too many ARTCC leaders for seven central staff members to monitor. And someone definitely needs, I think, to keep the ARTCC Evaluations up to date and honest. Perhaps on a quarterly or bi-annual basis, a team needs to be consistent with that.

 

I'm just throwing different ideas out here...there seems to be dissatisfaction on both sides.

[Richard Green 810012]

I'm just throwing different ideas out here...there seems to be dissatisfaction on both sides.

 

Steve -

 

You of course bring up valid points, but you as well as I know that for every 10 people you will get 15 opinions about the same issue.

[Kenny Stein 939991]

I think the staff here at VATSIM and VATUSA are doing a great job.

 

I don't see why many people would like some of them out of their hard earned positions...

[Richard Green 810012]

I think the staff here at VATSIM and VATUSA are doing a great job.

 

I don't see why many people would like some of them out of their hard earned positions...

 

Kenny -

Thats a fair question, but I answer you from the way "they" see it...

"They" don't do things the way "We" like it, so "we" want people in power who do things the way "we" want them to.

 

A group this large will always have people who feel that they are being wronged, or their opinions aren't being represented, and while I can respect their opinions (when they respect other people's opinions and don't counter with rude, false or just plain mean statements) we have to look at how to serve the good of the majority of members.

 

This is a forum... nothing more, nothing less. Change will rarely take place in these forums. I know the people who consistently shoot down anything that is posted here and more often than not, I just skim past what they say when I see their names come up. I am honest enough to say that I do it.

 

I respect people who have opinions, but I personally can't respect people who only serve to be malcontents at every turn of the page. There should be some level of balance, I don't expect anyone to like everything I say, but I also don't expect them to argue with me all the time either... Its human nature to do one of two things with people like that:

 

1. Argue with them, or

 

2. Tune them out.

 

I choose to do 2 whenever possible as it serves no purpose to get into a debate with someone who doesn't care to read an opinion other than their own.

 

I have found in my many ( too many at times I think ) years of membership in VATSIM/SATCO that by and large the membership are easy to approach when they make comments about not liking something, and the vast majority of the time its a simple misunderstanding. It is rare I have found a person, who had so much venom and ill-will twoard anyone with a VATxxx in their name that they distrust anything and everything that they say.

 

I am thankful that the majority of the membership makes it EASY to do my job. I appreciate the effort controllers and pilots give to improving their respective crafts, and I hope that it continues for a LONG TIME.