5//05

Back

Henry-

> Thank you. I appreciate the time and effort you've put into helping us
> try to resolve this.

It's in the job description. Glad to help wherever I can.

> We're really trying to understand why the MST removed Jason from the
> office of DST, and we expected that the MST would want us to understand.
> He obviously doesn't want Jason to be DST, but, while the MST can remove
> someone from office, Steel Shadows can turn around and reelect them.

Well, that's not really possible for a year or so, given the ruling. Even so, I can see what you're saying. The central point is, to the best of my knowledge, that a primary officer is responsible for the actions of an assistant. While many of the actions listed in the MST's decision were Mr. Strauss' actions, Jason was expected to address those actions, since Mr. Strauss was acting as ADST. That's why (I believe) the decision was written as a singular document, rather than splitting it out- the DST is responsible for the actions of the ADST. Generally speaking, it's a good idea to insulate assistants from direct action; assistants can be subject-matter experts, for example, who may not have all the qualities that one would look for in a primary officer... folks who are really good at one thing. Therefore, the primary officer retains full authority to appoint whoever (whomever?) they want as an assistant. With that authority comes the responsibility to keep one's assistants in line with the primary officer's policies. The actions of the assistant are the actions of the primary officer, in many ways. We can see that throughout the MH, including direct citations (that one can delegate authority, but can never delegate responsibility) and indirect references (such as the decisions of an assistant being appealed to the next level beyond the primary officer, not to the primary officer).

So- the situation, as I understand it, is not mainly that Jason acted unprofessionally himself, but rather that it was unprofessional not to overrule his ADST when that ADST was not acting in an appropriate manner, despite that being a responsibility of the primary officer. We see that in the real world frequently. A coach is responsible for the play of his team, though he never gets out on the field, so that coach may be fired if the season goes badly. If a store loses money for a month, even if it's the month that the manger is on vacation, then that manager may be fired for hiring an assistant manager that allowed it to happen. Sometimes it's a matter of poor judgment; sometimes it's loyalty; sometimes it's not realizing that there is a serious problem. Regardless, it's a matter of responsibility for one's office- which includes assistants.

So- as a related point, while I'm thinking about it- if anyone has any issues with any of my ARST's, please email me privately. In their areas of authority, their words are my words, unless I or they specifically state otherwise. That's something that I take very seriously, and want to hear about if anything is being handling in a less than ideal fashion.

I hope that helps clear things up, rather than muddying the waters.

Thank you,

--
Jon Herrmann, US2002021241
East Central RST
NEGLECT '05 ST Lead (Chicago, Jun 2-5)
ORIGINS '05 ST Lead (Columbus, OH, Jun 30- Jul 3)
"If the thrill is gone, then it's time to take it back" - Jim Steinman
"We must be the change we wish to see." -Gandhi

Back