Author Topic: Elect or Appoint (Read 11965 times)

Mike · « **on:** May 23, 2005, 05:01:34 PM »

Our last group meeting reported that the service is invesatigating was of improving the rank structure.

What are peoples thoughts on election of officers versus appointment???

Each choice has its pro's and its con's. Having been exposed to both methods of structuring a service i cant say i really like either... but hey, thats life!!

JamesGar · « **Reply #1 on:** May 24, 2005, 10:16:45 AM »

Difficult on to vote on Mike, I'd say appoint from the options, but another option may be apply!

In SAAS all volunteer appointment are now carried out by our HR department, which includes an advertisement, and full application process which involves a review of the application letter, CV, then an interview which has a Management Rep, in regional areas a community rep and a rep from the team. This has been studied to make it an equitable process.

I'd like to see something similar, I know this may be time consuming, but could cut out a lot of the current problems. I would appoint Senior FF's though, to enable succession planning and offer experience to others!

Mike · « **Reply #2 on:** May 24, 2005, 10:42:34 AM »

Hmm, ~Apply~........I actually like that idea..... pity it wont let me edit the poll to add the option.

Firefrog · « **Reply #3 on:** May 24, 2005, 12:15:15 PM »

Added for you

Mike · « **Reply #4 on:** May 24, 2005, 12:29:27 PM »

cheers

oz fire · « **Reply #5 on:** May 24, 2005, 12:51:27 PM »

There are obvious pro's and con's for all!
The current system is in place because people tollorate it, although they acknowledge that it is far from perfect.
The SAAS model is also good - although speak to the SAAS vollies and they have found problems (but then there is no system that keeps 100% happy 100% time)
Applying is a great idea. It would give people goals to aim for and also allow for succession planning/career planning. If you look across the state there are allot of brigades where the officers are in those positions because no one else wants them or has the experience.
I also believe that if people want the positions they need to be accountable - i.e. set some criteria, if they can't meet it then the issues need to be addressed. Many brigades already have criteria - but rarely follow then as they don't want to create waves.
I guess if we start with the end goal and work back we find a good process. My views of the end goal - Officers are people who are competent at fire fighting, can manage people and the administration/HR of the brigade and who you as brigade members are happy to commit to an incident with - i.e. you place your life in their hands.
Just my thoughts but a GREAT topic which should get heaps of interest for all options - good opportunity to have an open mind and to look forward

CyberCitizen · « **Reply #6 on:** May 24, 2005, 05:53:13 PM »

I Think Apply, However After They Apply Who Makes The Final Decision.

I Think They Apply & Then A Vote Is Called.

Mike · « **Reply #7 on:** May 25, 2005, 09:17:06 AM »

Apply was an addition after James' comments about the was SAAS select personel to fill the rank structure....

I would think the purpose of the interviewers would be to make that decision. Otherwise there would be no real purpose to having such a system in place.

firefighter_sa · « **Reply #8 on:** May 25, 2005, 12:07:25 PM »

Well I have sat back saying very little - nows the time.

Very difficult Mike to vote on.

I have mixed views on the subject but I would like to see the brigades to still vote for there leaders, but make it a minuim pre-request training level to be eligible for position.

eg (My suggestion only) a captain of a brigade should have minimum of 5-8 years service and level 1-3 with one specialized training fields (RCR,BA or Hazmat).

Just an idea to throw to the forum - obviously allot more fine tuning would be needed but a very controversial proposition.

Wayne

Good times · « **Reply #9 on:** May 25, 2005, 12:16:30 PM »

Yes I agree with Wayne, a minimum standard should be in place, my brigade has that, Level 1,2,3 a minmum on 2 years service and 1 specialist course eg BA.
I think that application process also has its merit but the length of time CFS takes to fill its paid staff positions would mean brigades would be running with firies for years!!

CFS_Firey · « **Reply #10 on:** May 25, 2005, 03:10:14 PM »

I think its important that the crew votes for the people who will lead them. I like to be able to trust the people who have my life in their hands, and election is the only way to make sure that happens.

However, I think the main problem is the point oz_fire made earlier about finding people to fill the positions. In my opinion, that is going to be one of the major issues the CFS will have to face in the near future.

If an officer is appointed, does that mean they have to stay as an officer until they leave the CFS, or will there be re-appointments every 2 years?

{Note for Firefrog, it might be a good idea to add "CFS" to the dictionary

}

strikeathird · « **Reply #11 on:** May 25, 2005, 08:48:52 PM »

Ultimately, I think it will always come down to an election.

Even if it is an application proccess, the brigade will have to vote on the position.

I think "Appointed" positions, are too dangerous. Eg - Favouratism, Bias, etc.

Mike · « **Reply #12 on:** May 26, 2005, 10:18:10 AM »

Appointment is a very dangerous system. Particularly if there is no "maximum term" set, and can potentially lead to a lack of diversity across the ranks.

To say it will always come down to an election...... is a very open ended statement, although i do think that applying for the position to be voted as an adaption to SAAS' method would leave the crew with some feeling that they still have control of their futures...

rescue5271 · « **Reply #13 on:** May 26, 2005, 01:03:19 PM »

I like the elect rather than appoint as this way the whole brigade gets to have a vote and say on who should be running the show rather tha some HR section in Adelaide.

JamesGar · « **Reply #14 on:** May 26, 2005, 07:08:21 PM »

Electing positions of responsibility has the downfall in the current system of the ability of to be easily manipulated. Friend and mate voting for friends and mates is a difficult thing, and I think that you don't always end up with the best person in the best position. Maybe an other option would be a vote by a brigade management team which could interview applicant to maintain an election of sorts but give more scope for people to gain respect and understanding of people wishing to fill this positions. Currently if youve joined a brigade and passed the probation period then you have a voting right, often without an understanding or knowledge of the people involved and their abilities and leadership capabilities.

Good times · « **Reply #15 on:** May 30, 2005, 05:49:35 PM »

Or worse still is the dynasty leaders, as in the guy thats been the captain since 1967 and thats just how it is, or the group officer that rules the world and has no succesion planning for when he stands down and its his way or the highway, and don't you dare question what he has to say otherwise you will never set foot in a CFS brigade again!! They even have regional officers running scared and defy directives that the rest of us need to abide by.

Thats the downside of voting.

nomex_nugget · « **Reply #16 on:** May 31, 2005, 03:49:53 PM »

I agree GT, One or two Region One groups spring to mind when you start talking about making up their own rules and defying Regional orders.

I like the idea of a limited term as a position holder, lets share the job around and create some backup should our leaders leave. I know of people who were initially thought of as terrible captains but after six months showed they had what it takes to do the job, sometimes the most popular candidates are not always the best.

Mike · « **Reply #17 on:** May 31, 2005, 04:35:08 PM »

16 replys and 108 views.... 9 votes for the poll..... thanks to those who are happy to put there view across, but it doesnt seem as though a lot of people are willing to share!

I can think of a few R1 groups as well, Hence why the question of change has been thrown around i guess. Dictatorship or democracy, its an interesting thought really.....

kat · « **Reply #18 on:** June 17, 2005, 05:27:42 PM »

I have no real opinion either way but would an appointment be less likely to break a dictatorship than a (democratic?) election. If the appointment is made by the Region or the Group are they in a better position to make an informed decision than those members that have to work with the appointee? It's easy for a potential Group Officer to say all the right things (and even win the position through a merit based selection process) to the Regional Commander and have the Regional Staff think the sun shines out of the proverbial but in reality they may be inept, an operational disaster, have no people skills etc - in short a cluster****

Interesting that the few who have chosen to vote are favouring elections. It seems there are a few who want to vote on some applicants that have been through some kind of merit based selection process? Maybe there are a fair few Brigades out there that have problems trying to get anyone to take these positions on in the first place and have to push someone screaming and kicking into the position

Good times · « **Reply #19 on:** June 18, 2005, 12:46:26 AM »

It really doesn't matter what you do, you still end up with the same people, mainly because none of the new people know any different, and when you do get dodgy people in, the CFS never really does anything in the way of helping teach these people how to do it properly or taking action when something really goes wrong. So we keep bumbling along with the same idiots year after year whilst the good one's get worn out and leave.

oz fire · « **Reply #20 on:** June 20, 2005, 10:23:48 AM »

In some instances I think the six percenters rule applies.

6% are idiots (lives only saved by OH&S standards and good luck), they influence 14%. It"s this 20% who take up 80% of the time, create 80% of the issues. This leaves the remaining 80% of the team only 20% of the time to have any influence. (modified slightly from Dogs Kearney's rule in the Leadership course - still very relevant)

Maybe merit based selection would overcome this.

May also allow for succession planning

May also teach people that they should encourage succession planning and when their time is up, move aside (not just down a rung or two) and allow new people, new opportunities, new growth and also to learn the lessons of life and to grow themselves and encourage growth below them.

Radical I know - but we all have our use by dates and there is always something new coming along!

Mike · « **Reply #21 on:** June 20, 2005, 10:31:34 AM »

The six percenter rule is useful in so many instances

Merit based selection still begs the question however...... who makes the descision?

Good times · « **Reply #22 on:** June 20, 2005, 05:43:08 PM »

OZFIRE, is that one t or two?

Pipster · « **Reply #23 on:** June 23, 2005, 10:30:43 PM »

I suppose one of the very first things CFS needs to do, before deciding to go election / appointment, is to actually have a PID for each postion (That is a position information document). Across different regions, it would appear that the various Officer positions are done differently - even thought they are meant to be the same position!

Having a very clear PID makes it easier for new members to know what their officers / office holders are meant to be doing, and it also allows the people who are standing for those roles to know exactly what is expected.

Pipster

strikeathird · « **Reply #24 on:** June 24, 2005, 02:29:30 AM »

Rule One, on the PID:

.. Avoid becoming an a$$ hole!

That should solve all problems!

Poll

Do you think ranking positions should be elected or appointed

Author Topic: Elect or Appoint (Read 11965 times)

Good times

strikeathird

rescue5271

Good times

Good times

Good times

strikeathird