Do we even need a VATUSA1?

[John Cierpial]

As stated by David, Ian, AJ, and I'm sure in many others' thoughts, the VATUSA staff can only do so much without VATUSA1 as their leader.  Bryan, if changes are beginning to occur (at least at the regional level), I would assume that some of these changes would trickle down and affect the divisions as well.

If that is the case, wouldn't you agree that it would be best to have a DD for VATUSA in place who can sit down and discuss matters, which may later affect him, with you?  This affords them the opportunity to have a voice in the policies, rules, standards, etc. that would be in effect when they would eventually step up to run the division.  To me, this would serve as a better and more productive opportunity for you and for the new DD to discuss matters and reach conclusions together, instead of the DD being handled a pile of papers and expected to go through them and follow them.  This also allows for the DD to have a better understanding of WHY such regulations, procedures, etc. are in place.

As I personally believe, it is always best to discuss with people policies, procedures, etc. which affect them so that they are aware of the how's and why's behind them, ultimately allowing for better communication and coordination amongst all ranks.

[Andrew Podner]

Few points of clarification:

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Just to note, the DD stepped up and refused to implement a part of the GRP that didn't affect VATUSA in any way whatsoever. And such was explained. That section of the GRP (5.3 for those tuning in for the first time) is worded especially for Divisions whose FIRs/ARTCCs have no websites. You'll notice the "Division/Facility" meaning one or the other. Thinking that every local policy needed to appear on the Division website was a misconception.[/quote]

GRP 5.3:
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Notwithstanding paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2, it is acceptable for Divisions to introduce Standard Operating Procedures to provide guidance to Controllers in respect of local arrangements such as runway configurations, clearance altitudes, handoff procedures etc. Such SOPs must be approved by the Division Director and must be published on Division/Facility websites for all controllers and pilots to read.[/quote]

How the heck is one supposed to make the connection that if an ARTCC has no website, only their policies have to be approved by the Division Director?  Posting it on a website was not the problem, having to review them all was the problem.  And no,  such was not explained.  

What you said to me on 1/11/10 was:
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]"I'm in complete agreement that the ridiculousness has to stop somewhere. The amount of oversight is indeed ridiculous and your example just shows that.  Why the hell should you care about runway selection and such? ha ha! That's why I "think" applies to local procedures in general, but who the hell knows.[/quote]

You gave me your personal interpretation that it did not apply, but then followed it with the above, so I asked for a formal answer and pointed out the problems with the system.......


Refusal to implement part of the GRP was based on 2 things:

1) I did not want to have to approve or force the staff to approve airspace procedures like runway configs, etc.  I felt it was overkill and the ARTCCs were capable of doing that on their own.  Call me crazy, but the GRP is clear on that point. The contention is now that "well that didn't really apply to VATUSA"........ but it is a Global Policy so how is a DD supposed to know what rules in a network wide policy apply and which ones don't.............  Bruce, your understanding of the issue was dead correct.

2) I did not feel that it was the USA Division's job to invent an arbitrary meeting for C3 which is a global rating and is supposed to transfer across divisions.  It would not have the same meaning between divisions and I could not understand why the GRP would address all of the other ratings but make that one subjective.  It is in my opinion, 100% wrong to take a situation that has been a problem since GRP1 and ignore it by pushing it off on the divisions where it could easily be turned into a boys club elitist rating.

I never received any official response to the refusal.  I actually told members of the USA Staff that I expected to be fired for it, and should have been.  I would have had a ton of respect for VATSIM if they had fired me because at least then there would have been some accountability.

There has also been a lot of talk about my access to the GRP forum.  I did not have it, but it didn't matter.  The revisions and drafts of the GRP were not being circulated in that forum anyway, so access to it would not have accomplished anything.  We did not see any draft after 9/1/09 or the final GRP until the day it was released, so my refusal to implement those provisions was necessary due to the fact that there was no opportunity to interject input prior to its codification.

Gary is more right that you guys can imagine.  Rules seem to keep being created in response to things that have gone awry in the past.  Rather than deal with the problem head on, rules are created to outlaw the problem.  Thing is, no matter what the intent of the GRP is, the end result is more bureaucracy and administrative overhead.  More webpages to develop, procedures to approve, tests to rewrite, blah blah blah.  That was a big concern to me with any policy, "How much does this affect downstream workload?"  For instance...GRP requires written exam AND OTS for every rating.  Ok Fine.  But VATSIM does not provide a central system for written exams, so every division is now REQUIRED to develop a testing center.  Fortunately, USA already had one, but the point remains that it is more downstream workload.   Major airspace creates another set of bureaucracy....signoffs, policies, training programs, etc.      

Bryan, I am glad to hear that you are considering dumping 05/05, it is ridiculous, and that should be evidenced by the stack of policies that were submitted in October for approval.  I wish you would have told me that before.

Why do VATUSA1's quit?  Simple......the amount of frivolity you have to deal with and cannot do anything about is abundant.  That alone would be fine, but when legitimate issues go unanswered, a person's ability to make decisions is diminished to a point where all that is left is fielding complaints from unhappy people..... so what is the point?  

As it stands now, the DD's job (quote from my resignation letter) is mostly a "buffer for people to complain at".  You cannot get involved in Conflict Resolution.  You cannot mitigate a situation where someone is poisoning an ARTCC, controller or staff.  And you really have to be careful about who you appoint to a position because it is a decision that pretty much cannot be undone.  You cannot hold staff accountable for breaking the rules without becoming an internet lawyer to build a case (and there are no rules on how the case must be built, it is completely subjective depending on who the "judge" is).

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]What do we get? We get ATMs who blatantly announce that they will exploit every possible loophole they can to circumvent the policies. And they do it!! The BOG and EC be damned. In short, what we really have are ATMs saying they will exploit every possible loophole to get around the Founders' Vision. Think about that one for a minute.[/quote]

I do not remember that ever being said......I must have missed it.   I don't remember a case of an ATM trying to maliciously subvert the rules (except one minor time, but I brought that to his attention and never had an issue after that), and certainly not one that was brought to my attention from above.  I think that overall the ATMs do a fantastic job of managing their positions, and should be commended for it.  The few bad apples that have existed over time should be dealt with individually rather than trying to choke them out via legislation, that doesn't work anyway.  But with the history of what it takes to deal with getting rid of a bad apple and making it stick......who would want to even try?

[J Jason Vodnansky]

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I'm starting my full review of the VATNA policies tonight (including 05/05 just for you Jason!)...

and

However, as I mentioned above, I am (tonight) begining a review of all the VATNA policies, particularly the ones that were in effect since long before I got here. 05/05 is the big one, and will most likely be removed entirely. I have no intention of micromanaging any facility to the extent that every little change has to be run by me first, however, there are some changes that are going to have to take place within local policy. Those will be addressed when the time comes.[/quote]

Good, then my work here is done.  While waiting on this review, I will move on to the next topic of contention, Transferring and Visiting Controllers in the coming days...

JV

[Tom Seeley]

With respect to Mr. Podner's post: I am happy to see someone with instant knowledge respond to what I took as a sweeping condemnation of VATUSA's ATMs and other local staff. I also missed the reported behavior, and dispute it. There may in fact be a VATUSA ATM who actively subverts the system, but I have fully one third of VATUSA's ARTCCs and I have no knowledge of such activities. In point of fact, I interact with one or more facilities seven days a week, and I am personally familiar with several others; instead of negative behavior, I am constantly amazed at the amount of time, effort and creativity that is devoted to this hobby by those who have chosen to step up and run a facility. All they really need is support instead of criticism ... and the ability NOT to blackball anyone, but to rid their roster through due process of clearly detrimental individuals who cause constant problems and drag the rest down.

Mr. Podner and Mr. Millsaps have it exactly right. It would be extremely helpful if their words were given the credibility they deserve.

[Richard Jenkins]

I am a firm believer that if, over the past 10 years, VATUSA did a better job of overseeing its facilities and ATMs specifically, and took the necessary action when required - then we would never have needed policies such as the GRP or those regarding visitors, transfers, and removals.

Presto Bada Bing....

This applies to many of the divisions. What goes on under the radar in many divisions is just downright depressing. I actually think VATUSA is probably one of the better divisions at keeping tabs on the staff, but things still happen. The email I posted in the other thread is an example. Why doesn't the division know his TA is a draconian task master? Does he condone the behavior? Is he oblivious? Or does he know and just doesn't want to rock the boat out fo fear he will have to get online and do training himself? Why hasn't the RD taken care of this? Why does this member feel as though he needs to come to me for redress?

There were way too many times as president that I was dragged into division issues. I shouldn't have been hearing from VATXXX1 at all! My experience was when in doubt staff members would copy everyone they could think of on an email and then say they have covered their bases. I don't know how many times I have been told, "Hey, I contacted the BoG and they didn't even respond!" Well, in most cases it was merely the fact people were jumping the chain. I would get emails from ATM's or the like saying I need to fix this or that. They usually got a response to go talk to VATUSA1. For me to intervene in that fashion would have been cutting the legs out from VATUSA1 or VATNA1.

I have quietly been asking questions and requesting information regarding some of the allegations with the demise of the last VATUSA1. Frankly, I was surprised by Andrew's resignation. He always conducted himself in a professional manner and from what I saw, seemed to keep a lid on things that have always raised their head in VATUSA.

His post about not complying with parts of GRP2 was a little out of character I thought and attributed it to frustration with the entire process. Then came the explosive resignation post.  Pretty clear there needed to be some work on the roster removal issue...  Other parts of it I felt Andrew was mistaken, but that is here nor there now. What Andrew's resignation should be saying loud and clear is that information flow and case resolution is not working.

I would also like to further explore the VATUSA need for excessive guidance from the BoG and EC. As president, I heard from VATUSA on a weekly, if not daily basis, for most of my tenure. In comparison most other divisions hardly ever contacted the BoG directly. I wonder if it had to do with proximity? I was readily available to the VATUSA staff, unlike Europe and the Pacific divisions with the time zone differences.

All things to think about.

[David Klain]

Some interesting posts here.  It really feels like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

- Like Richard, I get emailed all the time.  I generally try to answer the question if it is a request for information.  If a request for assistance, I try to steer them to the appropriate resource/level (ATM, DD, RD, DCRM, VATSIM forums, PRC, etc.).  Can't tell you how many times I have gotten a nasty gram back saying "thanks for nothing...you are no help (or words to that effect)".  Classic is a forgotten password when I direct them to the forgot password link and (if that doesn't work) ask them to submit a trouble ticket to membership.

- I see posts in the various forums and will try to answer, especially if I have information that others may not have that changes the dynamics of the issue.  Yes it is a "view from 50,000 feet" but that doesn't mean it is wrong and may mean it is actually more accurate as to the true state of affairs, especially on network-wide issues.    In the last few days I've been raked over the coals in both this form and the ZAU forum. Maybe as VATSIM President I should just monitor these forums but not respond and limit my responses to the VATSIM forums?

- Whenever there has been something directive in nature I needed sent down to an ATM/FIR Chief or a DD, I have always worked through the relevant RD and DD (if appropriate).  Generally sending the message to the RD and asking him to look into the situation or pass the info on.  Sometimes it has been a conversation between the ATM, DD, RD and myself with all cc'd on emails.  Based on some of these threads...some people feel I am only engaging when there is a problem (think it was called "seagull leadership") but that is really the only time I should be directly engaged with those below the level of RD, otherwise I am cutting the RD out and some would call what I was doing micromanagement.

So on the one hand I can support subordinate levels of the organization, work through them and be seen as unapproachable, unhelpful, disengaged, seagull management.  On the other hand I am undercutting the RD, DD and ATM, removing all their power, a micromanager who is interfering at the local level.  My belief (and approach) has always been that the truth is somewhere in the middle and I need to balance between the two.  I never send an email to the DD or ATM directly.  I go to the RD and ask him to look into it and report back.  When he does it frequently turns into a multi-level discussion but that is always done with everyone on the email so people aren't cut out.  By the same token, other than when that happens, I don't think I should ever be engaged directly with DDs or ATMS.  I come to the forums to be approachable to the general membership who (as Richard posted in the other thread) frequently come directly to members of the BOG when they have a problem they feel is being ignored by those above them...and even then my first response is to go to the RD and ask "what is going on?"...

What approach do you all think is the right one??

Dave

[Andrew Podner]

I think that when one assumes a leadership position, particularly at the division director and higher level, the first thing to realize is that the ability to speak informally, casually, and/or 'off-the-record' has officially expired.  Every statement made, every nuance of the diction will be scrutinized and interpreted as law.  I am not saying it is right, just, or fair, but it is true.  That typically will immediately translate into a sharp reduction in the number of statements made because of that very fact.  This is why in my opinion it is extremely important to be highly cognizant of the tone and likely perception of one's statements because it carries a weight that is exponentially relative to the office held.

[Richard Jenkins]

I think that when one assumes a leadership position, particularly at the division director and higher level, the first thing to realize is that the ability to speak informally, casually, and/or 'off-the-record' has officially expired.  Every statement made, every nuance of the diction will be scrutinized and interpreted as law.  I am not saying it is right, just, or fair, but it is true.  That typically will immediately translate into a sharp reduction in the number of statements made because of that very fact.  This is why in my opinion it is extremely important to be highly cognizant of the tone and likely perception of one's statements because it carries a weight that is exponentially relative to the office held.

No argument there.... Learned to keep my mouth shut after a few incidents when I was president.

[David Klain]

This is why in my opinion it is extremely important to be highly cognizant of the tone and likely perception of one's statements because it carries a weight that is exponentially relative to the office held.

No disagreement from me.  Several people have emailed me on occasion unhappy with the words I've used in a particular post, but after almost 20 years' experience as a speechwriter to some of the senior military and elected leaders in this country, I'm pretty good at choosing words that convey exactly what I mean to say....

:-)

Dave

[Alex Bailey]

No disagreement from me.  Several people have emailed me on occasion unhappy with the words I've used in a particular post, but after almost 20 years' experience as a speechwriter to some of the senior military and elected leaders in this country, I'm pretty good at choosing words that convey exactly what I mean to say....

:-)

Dave

Therein lies the problem, saying what you mean to say doesn't always make it right or appropriate. I don't believe you truly understood Andrew's words, or maybe you did and simply choose to use it as another platform to share with us your wonderful career in the military, which we've heard ad nauseum. Regardless, you encourage resignations and show people the door whose views differ from your own. If you mean to say these things, then by all means continue to leave yourself open to scathing criticism. That attitude doesn't help VATSIM...

[David Klain]

I've already acknowledged that a number of posters in this forum (including you) are convinced that all the founders, all the BOG and all the EC are completely screwed up, lousy leaders who have no idea what they are doing or what is best for the network but that you folks have all the answers....  As far as making it right or appropriate...that's in the eye of the beholder and your opinion of VATSIM's leadership is already pretty clear.  

I'd also like to be shown a single time when I've ever shown a person the door or told them to resign when their opinion is different than my own...has never happened!  What I have publicly stated on a number of occasions is that some VATSIM policies are NOT going to change and that people have a choice...it is THEIR decision whether they can live with those policies or not.  If they can't then the would probably be happier somewhere else.

The fact you continue to twist people's words and statements to reflect your preconceived notions and opinions doesn't change what the other words were.  I challenge any person in this forum to find a post I've made in this forum (or any other VATSIM forum for that matter) where I have (to use your words)

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Regardless, you encourage resignations and show people the door whose views differ from your own.[/quote]
  I have NEVER encouraged anyone to resign OR shown them the door (presumably that means fired them or kicked them out of VATSIM) if their views differ from my personal views.  At this point your continued attacks on me are no longer just annoying, based on the fact they are categorically untrue, they are rapidly becoming slanderous in violation of the standard of conduct we ALL have to comply with.  I'd also share with you that you don't even have a clue what my personal opinion is on most of the VATSIM policies.  Would  it surprise you to know that I don't agree with all of them?  There are several I disagree with, but I have a choice...I either implement them because they ARE the network policies or (if I can't live with doing that) I step down.  To date there has been no policy I disagree with that I find so onerous that I can't live with it.  

Near as I can tell, no Founder, BOG Member or EC member in this thread has attacked you in the way you have continued to attack them, let alone told untruths as you have done in the past and have done in the post immediately preceding this one.  

So here's the challenge to Alex and the rest of the VATUSA community -- If you can find a single post in ANY VATSIM-related forum where I have ENCOURAGED a person to RESIGN from their staff position in VATSIM OR ENCOURAGED a person to RESIGN (quit) VATSIM OR FIRED a PERSON from a staff position OR KICKED a person out of VATSIM because THEY DID NOT AGREE WITH MY PERSONAL OPINION then

I WILL IMMEDIATELY RESIGN AS PRESIDENT OF VATSIM.    

Start your searches now, when you come up with nothing, I would hope you'd be man enough to apologize for your lies and slander.

Dave

edited because upon re-reading Alex's implied statements I just got even more incensed at the lies and mistruths...I have no problem with the criticism (it comes with the job) but the lies really torque me off....

[Andrew Podner]

 

OK, let me try to bring this back to the "approach" issue..............

I want to throw out a sort of made up term that I attribute to VATSIM....."leadership by coercion".  VATSIM is an all volunteer organization.  We all know this.  But it is a distinction that makes it so much different than any of the management experience that most people have had.  In the public and private sector, leadership is done to some extent with buy-in, but you always have 'leadership by decree' to fall back on.  That doesn't exist here.  Edicts without 'buy-in' are doomed to disaster whether they are good ideas or not.  Volunteers have nothing more than a desire to serve keeping them in place, and once that begins to be eroded, the turnover will commence.  It is not unique to VATSIM, all volunteer organizations experience it and I have dealt with it heavily first hand outside of this network. Participation has very natural, albeit at times steep, ebbs and flows, and I think that it is extremely important to recognize that volunteer management is the inverse of the norm.

In volunteer management, the top truly needs the bottom a hell of a lot more than the bottom needs the top.   It may seem counter-intuitive, but it is true.  So when we talk about 'stability in the division staff', it is really a flawed concept.  You really do not need a lot of stability in personnel at the division level because the heavy lifting is not done there.  Where you need it is at the ARTCC level.  Those guys are the ones that directly influence the makeup of the INS cadre, they have the most influence over the attitudes of the controllers on the frequency, and they are the ones that provide for the existence of every layer of management above them.

We need their buy-in and their belief in the direction of the network, because the happiness and job satisfaction of the 1st echelon of staff in a volunteer organization will translate into higher productivity (e.g. more hours of training provided, more people online, more controllers moving more quickly through the system).  If those people feel over-regulated and hamstrung......does it really matter what the EC or the BOG thinks about whether or not it is true?

The org chart here is a hierarchy, but you may as well torch it because it is meaningless.  The top echelons do not drive the success of this network.  They have the least amount of influence over it short of pulling the plug on the servers.  The bottom drives the organization.  I told my staff on many occassions, the ATMs, TAs and other staff members at the ARTCCs our our customers and that is exactly how they should be treated.  I felt that the USA staff was here to support their efforts not to drive them.  In the same way, pilots are the customer of the controller, and it is unfortunate that sometimes the way people are treated doesn't reflect that.  Without pilots, there's nobody to give ATC services to. Similarly without staff at the lowest level, there's no need for the upper levels.  Being approachable is fine, but that concept is severely diminished when a part of that turns into open attacks or divisive statements when someone dissents, or in this network's case, gets tagged as a troublemaker.  The fact that someone regularly disagrees, and maybe even chooses their words to do so poorly, does not mean that their point of view is automatically invalid or that they deserve anything less than friendly, respectful treatment from the leadership.  But as of late, that has not been the case here.  And that is truly a shame, and disheartens me more every time I see it.

So to tie it all back together, when I say 'leadership by coercion', what I mean is presenting a attitude and an approach that lends itself to people wanting to do the same things you want to do, and being open to the idea that your thoughts are not perfect, and be willing to compromise to achieve the best result, recognizing that having the last word or being right really is not that important in the grand scheme of things.

[Richard Ruminski]

This discussion has now become personal.  We have spent far to much time fixing the blame than fixing the problem.  Take it somewhere else gentlemen. This thread is closed.