Comments | mwmalotte: Yet another step backwards

mwmalotte

Yet another step backwards

Jan 13, 2009 22:37

By this time, you'd think that nothing this EC did would surprise me. Well, they have. Words are just not adequate to describe my disappointment in our leadership.

It's a damn shame, really, and just goes to prove that vendetta is in full effect.

Comments 16

willdevine January 14 2009, 04:54:21 UTC

To think what the EC could accomplish if they took all the time and money spent on persecuting a select few members and instead funnelled all of that into actually doing something to benefit the membership as a whole. If only.

mwmalotte January 14 2009, 04:56:38 UTC

It won't happen - they still have new lows to strive for. They have become what they campaigned against and I can't remember a darker time in Fleet.

gibbie69 January 14 2009, 05:04:18 UTC

Ok I missed a memo, what happened now?

glithander January 14 2009, 06:51:12 UTC

EC demoted Scott Akers to LGEN for... how did they word it? Behavior Unbecoming an Officer, or some such bull.

To agree with my esteemed colleague, they continue to operate in vendetta mode. It took them a year, but they finally found a way to get back at him.

This is over the Blaser IG investigation, I believe. The IG investigation requested by Rayburn against Akers for - get this 'Libel and Defamation of Character' - is still pending. Of course, why the IG is investigating Libel and Defamation is beyond me.

mwmalotte January 14 2009, 10:43:24 UTC

Why is the IG investigating Libel and Defamation of Character?

Because Sal is allowing it.

Because Sal is looking for reasons to continue to go after Scott.

Because Sal wants to look like the "hero" to the thin-skinned wussies we have in this organization so he's trying to take out the "bully".

Scott Akers has been Sal's target and focus since coming into office. One way or the other, rules and regulations be damned - and he has three years to accomplish it - he will boot Scott outta Fleet. After coming this far, he certainly isn't going to allow a silly little thing like "right and wrong" stop him.

Hell, it's not like the EC or AB will do anything about it. Most are just sheep, blindly following 'ol Shepherd Sal, constantly bleating, "oka-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-ay"

allyson13 January 14 2009, 16:34:52 UTC

All I can think of is how sad this all is.

mfiveonline January 14 2009, 16:36:38 UTC

I've officially given up on this administration. Time to just wait it out until election time. No matter what it done right now, the admin will find a way to work around anything that will usurp them, and woefully, a really big part of the membership still thinks they are doing swimmingly.

Brace yourself for a post McGinnis style rebuild of SFI. That is, if someone decent is elected after Sal to CS.

sfi_firefighter January 15 2009, 00:58:41 UTC

Lets see. I swore I'd do this for a time and now seems as good a time as any ( ... )

kirylyn January 15 2009, 01:32:09 UTC

can someone tell me why it was thought a 3 year term was a good idea?

I get that the CS needs time to 'ramp up' but given the last two CSs, it seems like 3 years is too long.

I guess I should be happy it isn't four years but what would it take to go back to a 2 year CS term?

for those of us who weren't around for the Dan years, thanks for the concise comparsion Ed

mwmalotte January 15 2009, 02:31:35 UTC

You can blame that on me - I was the one who introduced the amendment. It was thought that, having a three year term would give the sitting CS time to set things in place and make some real progress. Match that with the accompanying rule that you can't have two consecutive terms and it took all of the political posturing out of the office ( ... )

kirylyn January 17 2009, 15:51:46 UTC

ok, that explains the 3 year term.

so what is needed to reverse it?

go back to a 2 year term and that one person can NOT serve consecutive terms (and no fancy having someone else running as CS with them as vice only to have the elected CS step down ( ... )