Henry,
See below. :-)
Jed Stancato
US2002021727
East Central Regional Coordinator
_____
From: steelshadows@yahoogroups.com [mailto:steelshadows@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Henry Towsner
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 4:47 PM
To: steelshadows@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [steelshadows] Clarificiations
Jed,
It's always good to hear a perspective from a third party, and I appreciate your comments.
I'm quite concerned by your comment about our domain "actively going against the rules". Are you referring to something more serious than a handful of heated comments by two or three domain members?
--did I say it that way? This is an honest question as I didn't see my words as saying it that way. I think I know the email you were referring to and I tried to make a point to say that I am not using Pittsburgh as an example of this. My reference was merely an example of a factor that could lead to domain closure. I am not saying that Pittsburgh is actively pursuing this option. If I did. I misworded it and I apologize.
While I'll be the first to admit that we should all try to follow the rules, I should also be the first to admit that, when we see one officer violating rules and others seeming to support him, people will want to point it out, and will not always be as restrained in doing so as they ought to me.
--Understandable. However, my goal is always to try to lead by example. While one officer may break the rules. that does not make it right for the rest of us to. People pointing it out in a constructive manner works much better. Example, saying "I disagree with your point of view and here is why." versus "Your point of view is stupid." Obviously, the first version is the better way to word it when dealing with people. Even if the officer themselves may have broken the rules. it's better to say it "I believe your action is in violation of the rules listed in the MH. (cite where you get your information from in the MH)" instead of "You are going against the rules." While it might appear that the second version is just a right as the first. the first offers citation as well thusly making it more constructive. also it comes off as more polite. I'll be honest, I am more apt to deal with a more polite person than not. The reason that is is because if someone is polite, they are usually more willing to hear another point of view. Angered discussion never works well nor ends well because in the end, they usually just concede to end the argument and will never see nor accept the other person's point of view.
That doesn't mean it's okay to do such things, and appropriate actions should be taken when they are. I hope our local coordinators are investigating those actions and taking appropriate steps, and if not, I certainly hope you will do so.
--I try not to step on toes of the local coordinators. I don't want them to think, or anyone else to think, that I micromanage the region. I try to allow the coordinators an opportunity to handle the situation on their own. I am sure if Kris feels that anyone here says or does anything inappropriate, he will act accordingly or ask me for advice on how to handle the situation. Now if you refer to those outside the domain, such as regional and higher officers, I do ask questions when I feel an action is wrong. after all, it helps to understand why they did what they did. and for all I know, they might be right. :-)
However I'm not aware of any more serious violations, nor any rule violations for which fault lies on more that a few individual domain members. If there is some impression that our domain is wildly breaking rules, this is a matter of serious concern for all us.
--Agreed. Always remember that the words of the loudest few come back to seem like representations of the populous. Example, if you have 2 problem players in a chapter and they are extremely vocal and you don't really hear anything from the rest of the chapter. some people perceive that as silent acceptance of their views. This can become a problem when dealing with the rest of the group. Make sense?
As for your remark about appeals, you may not be aware, but I attempted to formally raise concerns about some of Alex's decisions (those against the domain as a whole, as opposed to those that were only against Jason, for which I felt I had no standing). Mr. Bailey felt no need to read it before sending me his opinion of it, and chose not to follow the procedures designated in the Membership Handbook for handling it. If there is some procedure to deal with this which I have missed, I would love to see it, but I have attempted to be thorough. I believe most of the over-the-top comments (at least the ones I have made) can be attributed to this failure of internal methods to reach a resolution.
--The best way to handle a problem like this is to utilize the chain of command. Fire your concern first to your DC. then Kris will get a hold of me with it. If we both agree that this is a problem. then I take it on to Wes. Wes and I discuss it and if we both agree it is a problem, we take it on to Charles. Obviously, we keep Kris and you involved in the discussion as much as possible. What this does is show that you are willing to work within the system and your issue is heard much more readily because it shows a compliance and understanding of the chain and working with the team instead of against it. I'm not saying your action was against the team effort, so please don't read it that way. but had I gotten a copy of your email to Charles, I might have been able to help you and discuss it with you, making your email on up the chain stronger and more likely to be heard. Just be careful with over-the-top comments. they tend to cause more damage to your case then good. Once you damage your credibility, it is very hard to get much of anything accomplished. Make sense?
I hope this helps you Henry. :-)