Political Action
I have been told on a few occasions to “put my money where my mouth is.” The very nature of STARFLEET Fail, at its roots, is to bring about change in STARFLEET. But most opponents of this site see it mainly as “sour grapes.” A crybaby site focusing on the Lizard/Halverson administration because “our candidate” did not win.
This site is more than mob mentality. We are not gathering with pitchforks and torches, demanding heads on pikes. We all agree that STARFLEET needs to be fixed.
Calling for the resignation or impeachment of Sal Lizard is not the answer. We’d just get Garrick Halverson as his replacement at Commander, STARFLEET, and I am not convinced that is any better.
We need to take a page from our parents’ manual. In the sixties, during all the protests and movements, one thing grew. They learned, as young hippies, that burning flags and screaming at the top of their lungs at “the man” was not working.
So they got haircuts. Got an education. Got jobs. began working through the system. They learned to beat the man, you have to become the man. Now these hippies are senators.
I propose we form a sort of political action committee. We would help a candidate get elected as Regional Coordinator in their region. Working within the system, we get rid of the Sal Pals on the Admiralty Board one at a time. We oppose all the spending, the secrecy, we make new resolutions from the Admiralty Board demanding more transparency and better communications.
Your thoughts?
(5 votes, average: 2.6 out of 5)
Loading ...
August 26th, 2008 at 10:10 am
It’s a fantastic idea, if you’re interested in wasting your time. To be perfectly honest, not enough people care to make a difference. Chances are they won’t care until all the money’s gone and there isn’t enough scratch to print and mail the CQ or membership materials.
Since the election, over ten percent of the entire organization has disappeared. Nearly twenty percent of our corporate assets have been spent on legal fees, and two of our members have been threatened with lawsuits. Nearly thirty percent of all STARFLEET chapters are understrength.
There are leadership solutions to this problem, but they don’t exist at STARFLEET’s core. Regardless of Sal’s deception and poor handling of just about everything on the table, STARFLEET elected him. It is his responsibility. If he chooses not to accept it, understand it and affect positive change, then it’s STARFLEET’s fault for putting him in that chair.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:31 am
That comment kinda stings. So trying to effect change is a waste of time? The only reason that stings so badly, Emmett, is you are probably absolutely correct.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:34 am
two of our members have been threatened with lawsuits
By the organization, that we know of.
Also, 9 more were threatened by an officer of the organization (at the time).
August 26th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I am off to waste my time and try to fix things from within.
Communication in STARFLEET sucks. Sal’s spending spree sucks. Membership dropping sucks. SFI.org sucks - atleast I think it does - I cannot get in and though Moyer and another nameless tech promised to fix it - nothing has happened.
I cannot help to fix everything. So I decided to pick thing that bugs me the most and try to fix that. The idea being, if I can prove one problem can be fixed, then people will start to realize other things can be fixed. I picked communications to try to help fix.
Jonathan Lane has got his hands full to try to fix it. I am going to try to help him. Time will prove if he is successful. If he is, the CQ will be better and then maybe membership will pick up or atleast stop free falling.
If you look at all the problems STARFLEET has it is overwhelming and it is easy to feel defeated before you start. I suggest, everyone pick one item and think of a way to help it get corrected.
August 26th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I think there are many who care about the fiscal health of STARFLEET. I just believe that they think there is nothing they can do with a leadership that will not act in the organization’s best interests and allow an irresponsible person to run haphazard with the checkbook.
I hear many voices in the wilderness… just few that are loud and coherent.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Rob - as much as your efforts are to be commended, a better CQ will do nothing to pick up the membership. The news is old when you get it and ancient by the time it sees the light of publication. As a news source, it lost its effectiveness in the 90s.
Add to that the “poor, pitiful me - it’s the fault of the meanies who don’t support me - the job is a double-edged sword (again and again and again) - be nice or be gone - please don’t impeach me” articles by our esteemed *cough cough* CS and you have the recipe to chase folks away, not attract them.
Until someone at the highest levels of HQ realizes that open, honest, timely and FREQUENT communication is desperately needed, members will continue to leave.
Until there are some sort of realistic, enforceable checks and balances against the wildly irresponsible spending going on in this administration, our funds will continue to be siphoned off for meaningless expenses and members will continue to leave.
Until HQ realizes that our rights are not contingent on someone else’s idea of what is “proper” behavior and stop trying to kick out their detractors, members will continue to leave.
Until HQ decides to hold themselves accountable to the same things they are holding everyone else in this org to, members will continue to leave.
Soon, there will not be enough members to support the deficit - both in fiscal terms and in trust terms - this administration is creating.
Because until they wake up and realize how much their selfish, secret, constitution/MHB-violating actions are tearing this org apart - and actually do something about it…
…members will continue to leave.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Rob:
SFI.ORG has issues. In my opinion, there was no need to change from Joomla to this new e107 CMS Matt Moyer is using.
I was on the team that rolled out the “new” Joomla SFI.ORG in 2006. Sal Lizard was CompOps. I applied with Sal to be SFI’s webmaster. Larry Barnes got the job, but Larry and Sal discussed it and the guys that DID NOT get the job were invited to be on the team.
I did not have a large role. I have said before, I believe Larry did not utilize the talents of the members of his team. That is not Larry’ s fault, perhaps, but I think if he had delegated more tasks, the site would have been easier to keep current.
Larry did sort of fall asleep at the switch toward the end. I don’t know why, it may have been tat he knew he was a “lame duck” and sort of “retired on active duty.”
SFI.ORG needed updates but it was not broken. And it looked good and operated well. Matt did not do anything WRONG by replacing the CMS with the one of his choosing. It’s his project, but I believe that e107 is crap compared to Joomla. That theme he is using MUST be viewed at a minimum of 1024×768 resolution or it breaks the layout.
I think Matt should have worked with what Larry built. Larry had a good thing going, it just needed some updates. Now we have shiny new software, and STILL NO UPDATES and half the site does not work and many members cannot log into the member only areas.
Why did Matt switch? My personal belief is he just did not know Joomla well. So he went with what he did know rather than learn something new.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Fair enough.
I am starting to think whatever Santa touches or whoever he appoints, turns to coal. Myself included.
Starting to see come cracks in the plaster…
August 27th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Well, I’m gonna buck the trend. I think that getting organized enough to make a difference is a great idea! But the trick is actually getting organized. And that’s the challenge. Dave, to do what you suggest will involve several steps:
1] Finding the people who want to step up and challenge the people who they feel aren’t doing the job that needs to be done.
2] Helping those people get a positive message out to the members.
3] Marshalling support for those people who *do* step up among their fellow members and chapters.
If you really want to form the equivalent of a PAC, consider how you’d accomplish what you suggest. Truth be told, perhaps it’s time to step away from the “fail” metaphor (which, as has been discussed, may have run its course) and retool to provide a positive message that folks can be enthused by. It’s likely to be an uphill battle; it sure looks like people are more ready than ever to walk away rather than fight, and that’s a shame. But perhaps that can be changed if a message can be crafted that says, “Things can be different. Things can be better. And here’s how.” But then y’gotta specify how.
Ready to actually take on *that* challenge?
August 28th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Alex, while I respect your viewpoint, I see the current situation as assessed more accurately by Mike Malotte. A PAC or the equivalent at present is a Sisyphus-ian task.
Everyone’s mileage may vary. And probably will.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:13 am
To clarify my previous post, it’s just that I can see more effective blood, sweat, toil and tears being put into repair and recovery during the post-Lizard era than in a PAC.
Speaking only for myself, a positive message can only go so far. Actions speak louder than words and the actions of the current administration often belie their high-minded and -sounding statements.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
My only problem with an organized PAC is the concern that if it’s not done exactly right, it will actually accomplish the exact goal it tries to prevent.
To illustrate… We all seem to feel that ‘Members Matter’ is a truthful statement… but some feel that to the current admin, some members matter more than others.
So to combat that, we put together a PAC to vet and propose candidates that represent the feelings of the PAC? Isn’t that just a different set of members that will matter more to the person that the PAC put into place?
I haven’t liked, for a while now, that STARFLEET has essentially turned into a ‘Party’ system. I’d honestly like to see STARFLEET elections go back to only electing CS/VCS, and *then* letting the Cabinet be appointed by the CS (and confirmed by the AB).
The way we do it now, we set up a scenario where one group gets a good Ops person… another gets a good CompOps person… another gets a good CFO person… And it prevents us from assembling that ‘Dream team’ where they’re all together.
I’m just rambling…
August 28th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
On a grammatical note, the word should be Sisyphean, not Sisyphus-ian. Apologies.
August 28th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Danny:
You hit on a big problem right there. That’s why in the last election, Emmett did not name his entire slate, he assembled the team as he went. Wade never did announce his EC slated, did he? I don’t think it is required, it is just something that is “traditionally” done, so we assume that it’s the rule.
I do not want to see STARFLEET elections become partisan. However, it has become an “us vs. them” situation. And I am not sure which side is to blame there. Sal and the rest of the Elves point fingers down to us, we point back at them, and both sides sling some dirt in the process.
Would certain members matter to a PAC? Yes, most assuredly. Those that agree with what the PAC believes would “matter” more than than others.
You’ve seen the rhetoric here. “Only 532 Members matter,” referring to the votes the Lizard/Halverson ticket received, or “Representing the 51% Minority,” referring to the only 49% that voted Lizard/Halverson. The rest of the votes, 51%, went split among the remaining three candidates. Yet, the new administration tossed words like “majority” and “mandate” around freely when in fact they had neither.
Show me, please, where this is different than any other political situation? It always comes down to TWO SIDES. There’s the side in power (the winners) and the side not in power (the losers.)
I am just suggesting that those of a like mind work together to get others elected to the Admiralty Board over the next two years. And, then in 2010, we do the same thing to get a more reasonable Executive Branch in place as well.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I guess I’d just like to believe things can be different.
When Jennifer Rosbury and myself ran for Region 2 Regional Coordinator, we *refused* to use the word ‘opponent’ for each other. Each was just ‘the other candidate’ for RC. We jointly agreed on our VRC, too.
We purposely chose to send the message that, no matter who won, the Region had a clear indication that we weren’t ‘choosing sides’… We were just two different types of people that did things a different way. And we were pretty clear that each of us was willing to work with (and for) the other.
The idea was that Region 2 didn’t need to worry that there were ’sides’… Just different ways of approaching things.
It would be great to see the EC do that as well… To have the various teams just agree to put together the best staff possible, and just accept that the person in charge is going to have a different way of doing things than others.
What we did here was backwards, I think… We didn’t take the best minds and say “how do we fix things?” and then pursue that… We took the best minds *that already agreed with my proposed solutions*… guaranteeing that my solution is the one that’s pursued.
Maybe I’m still a little naive… I can accept that
August 29th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Danny-
your system sounds beautiful in theory, but if a candidate can’t tell me who is going to be doing some of the toughest and most essential jobs in FLEET during the campaign, I’m gonna have a hard time voting for them.
“Who’ll be making the CQ, doing the website, managing Membership Processing, and controlling the finances?” can’t be answered with “I hope to find the best and the brightest.” It leaves to much to chance.
On the flip side, agreeing to work with someone is, on at least some level, an endorsement, which is why so many people feel reluctant to agree to work with more than one candidate. It feels disloyal.
August 29th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
J.C.,
If I ever ran for CS (and no, I have no plan to), I would probably answer your question by saying that I would intend to leave all existing EC staff in position until I saw that they weren’t performing their jobs.
I look at STARFLEET as a business… Just because the Chief Executive Officer gets replaced doesn’t mean that you fire all the other Executives… You work with what you have, and change what needs to be changed. Why change what’s working? The real world works like that, why can’t STARFLEET?
Now, if the existing EC members aren’t willing to stay, I’d be forced to look for replacements, but even then I’d be tempted to let the next-highest person in their departments have the billet until proved ineffective.
I never had any issue endorsing Jennifer. I wanted Region 2 to focus on what style of leadership/direction they wanted, rather than get hung up on whether they were going to get me mad for not voting for me.
I don’t agree that agreeing to work with someone is an endorsement. If I took the job of Chief of Operations, for example, I’m agreeing to work *for STARFLEET*…. not for Sal… not for Emmett… not for Joost… not for Wade… for STARFLEET. I shouldn’t care who my boss is… at least not until I discover I *can’t* work for them.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
You can say that you’ll let people stay, but I guarentee people will think “okay, that means he’s picked the person already in the position” whether that’s what you mean or not.
And it is an endorsement. To work for Sal means you think he’s doing the kind of job you can lend your effort to, whether you want it to or not.
You can say differently, but that doesn’t change how it is.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I think you’ll find that in any election season, you’ll find plenty of people voting for Candidate A not because they like Candidate A’s positions on the issues or experience in carrying out their goals, but because they strenuously dislike either Candidate B or someone associated with Candidate B. This works both ways in a STARFLEET election; I’m not altogether certain that it’s working out that well for STARFLEET, and those are two completely different things.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Emmett is 100% correct here. I can personally attest to voting for a candidate not for any of their good points or promises but rather for who they had in the support roles.
Prior to Mandy, it really didn’t matter too much who was in the center seat so long as they had capable folks filling the EC. But with this current administration, things changed up a bit. Folks got sucked into the whole “Members Matter” propaganda machine and voted for a change from the status quo. Normally, this is not a bad thing provided change is not made just for change’s sake. We’ll just have to see if enough folks have “voter’s remorse” in the near future.
But as Emmett said, this practice of voting for the undercard or voting against a disliked person really isn’t doing STARFLEET any favors.
August 30th, 2008 at 10:04 am
One vulnerability of any election is that any such thing is by nature a “popularity contest”. People generally won’t vote for someone they don’t like personally, no matter how effective a leader or administrator they may be.
I’m reminded of an anecdote that dates from the Spanish civil war in the 1930s regarding a partisan unit that literally selected its leaders by popular vote - strictly by popularity and little if anything to do with effectiveness. This unit was apparently wiped out…
The whole “Members Matter” wave reminds me of just how harmful ignorance can be in mass quantities.
August 31st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
This campaign affirmed for me just how much marketing and image play in elections.
Sal’s campaign seemed to appeal to a very “touchy-feely” part of people’s psyche: the good dad, avuncular, protective. Largely, it was an emotion based campaign. No news here, but his Santa Claus image helped gain him a plurality.
Emmett’s campaign appealed to people’s pragmatism and logic. A combination of Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne, if you will. It rubbed many people the wrong way, but if one stopped and think about what was promised and what was delivered by Emmett, the Blackheart and others associated thereof … we might have been saved all this internecine warfare going on.
Mind you, I am not under the delusion that an Emmett Plant administration would be perfect for all concerned. But I feel strongly, based on what I’ve seen, that we’d be better off than we are in this cold reality.
August 31st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Good luck with your cause. Sometimes writing a blog is the best way to gain justice.
September 1st, 2008 at 4:56 am
Hey, thanks to that Anonymous Pussy whose IP hails from Greenville, SC! Thanks for that, but since you don’t have the balls to sign a name or valid email address to your opinion, that is about all you’ll get from me.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I have moments