BRMRG Restructuring Discussion
To the new BOD, I've been working for sometime on thinking about ways that we can reorganize our officer structure. The mass exodus from offices last year was very disruptive. It would be most unwise of us to think we can just plug new people in the same old faulty holes and think it won't happen again. To that end I encourage us to discuss ways in which we can change things for the better. In the interest of starting a discussion I offer the B. Justin Reich Officer Manifesto (if you get bored skip to the end where I just make a pretty drawing of an officer structure): Sadly, a very important conversation started not long ago which stopped in its tracks. As an organization we need to confront the fact that we repeatedly lost officers over the course of the year. The reasons were varied and valid and the specifics are not important. Many people had to leave for their own reasons, and we of course can make no efforts to change that. However we can change our organizational structure such that it is easier for an officer to be an officer. My thesis is that two key changes can make our structure more effective: 1. Increase the number of active officers 2. More equitably divide the responsibilities of offices Here then is a fairly lengthy foray into how we can modify our flow of information, accountability, and responsibility such that we are more capable of performing the various functions that make BRMRG "work" and also keep people from being overloaded and burnt out. Our group "does" three "things." 1. We search for lost subjects 2. We train people to search for lost subjects 3. We keep ourselves financially solvent in order to search for lost subjects (under this goal I will subsume all Public Relations activity, which essentially supports fundraising) Not surprisingly we have three categories of offices 1. OPERATIONS 2. TRAINING 3. FINANCE Thus our managerial structure at the most basic level looks like this: BOD OPS TRAINING FINANCE {The purpose of the BOD is threefold: to codify the intents of the membership into goals and organize the execution of those goals, to be accountable for the actions of officers, and to represent BRMRG publicly. By and Large, the BOD functions adequately, thus I won't speak more of it} Let me pick apart the three main branches of our organization and talk a little bit about how I believe they should be managed. Training- Training is going quite well. It seems to require one coordinating officer and the support of the membership, particularly the older membership. I have no suggestions here. Finance- We need to find a way to make fundraising part of BRMRG managerial culture. To that end I propose making a tighter knit group of the financial end our our group. Let me present a new way of looking at finance: FINANCE TREASURER PIO Deputy PIO for HAT Very minor changes here. Two are of significance. First, all the offices related to finance are brought into one committee, very similar to the way the OPS offices became a committee. More than likely the functions of treasurer and finance would be performed by one person. But these activities should be more closely tied to fundraising. The biggest change is that the new HAT officer doesn't just do HAT. HAT is a minor office. PIO is a huge office. Why not give the HAT officer a greater responsibility in fundraising thus keeping HAT more involved an PIO less overwhelmed. Also with two officers more of the fundraising can be kept within fundraising. Why on earth is the RSAF grant application in the OPS file drawer? What does a grant app have to do with searching for lost subjects? Too much of fundraising gets turfed to OPS- keep it within a finance group. Keep the lines of communication open so that fundraising tasks can be executed by a team not a person. Ideally one BOD member would be specifically responsible for supporting this side of BRMRG. There are more organizations applying for SAF than ever before, and searches are getting larger than ever. You do the math- we need to raise more money. OPS- First off we must recognize that the Operations side of BRMRG has two halves- Operational Readiness and Operational Policy. OPS policy is the 36 month review, the admin manual, the equipment standards, etc. Ops Readiness is stocking ops kits, checking and buying necessary equipment and charging batteries. Here's the schematic: OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL READINESS OPERATIONAL POLICY *OPS OFFICER* *OPS COMMITTEE CHAIR* *QUARTERMASTER* *MEDICAL* *EQUIPMENT* *COMMO* *ADC* *INTELLIGENCE* (Individuals Denoted by *XXX*) OK, this one looks a little crazy- here's the theory. For years the functions of Ops, Ops committee chairm and quartermaster have been performed by one person. Can you say burnout?? Split the work. The Ops officer will be responsible for the administration of Operational Policy and representing BRMRG in the ASRC Ops committee. The Ops Committee chair will be responsible for the day to day execution of Operational policy and maintaining the operational readiness of the group. Obviously there is huge, huge overlap, but that overlap shouldn't mean that one person should be doing everything. Close communication would be key. Operational Policy involves the input of the group. The Ops officer would have to be a talented facilitator of conversation about subjects concerning the group. Close consultation with the OPS committee and the membership at large would be key. Operational Readiness is very different. The key to readiness is individual accountability (as our failures in Alert have shown us.) Thus one person is accoutable for everything. Not that one person does everything. In fact this one person has 6 officers- QM, EQ, ADC, MED, INTEL and COMMO to make sure everything gets taken care of. Each of these people is in turn accoutable for their jurisdiction, but accountability falls in the hands of one person who has no other task save make sure we are ready at a pager's beep to respond. This group is entrusted with our most sacred goal: Searcher Safety. Clearly the 6 members of the OPS committee would be in constant and close contact with the OPS officer such that their voices are heard in OPS policy. To more carefully define them: Quartermaster- Maintain the readiness of OPS supplies and the overall condition of the locker. Support the OPS Officer w/ paperwork Equipment- Maintain the readiness of rescue equipment and assist in the purchase of new rescue equipment. Communications- Maintain the readiness of radio equipment and assist in the purchase of new radios. Represent BRMRG in the ASRC Commo committee Medical- Maintain the readiness of medical equipment and assist in the purchase of new medical equipment. Represent BRMRG in the ASRC Medical Committee **** and in the TJEMS group**** (again, why have two officers with too little work) Intelligence- Maintain the readiness of our computer resources, phone mail lists, email lists and web site. Alert/Dispatch Coordinator- Maintain the readiness of the pager network, train dispatchers, ensure the accountability of alert officers, be accountable for the quality of alert and dispatch. Assist all other officers in achieving the goal of getting teams out in 30 minutes or less. Assist the ASRC ADO. The OPS Committee Chair does nothing save make sure the above six do their jobs. Without singular accountability we have the kinds of problems we faced before with poor response times and unchecked equipment. The one person's job is not to fix every thing, it is to make sure they can find other to do everything. The function of OPS committee chair might be best performed by a BOD member, much as finance committee chair could be held by another BOD member. Thus our overall officer structure might look like this BOD CHAIR | OPS COMMITTEE CHAIR(BOD) - OPS - TRAINING - FINANCE CMTE CHAIR(BOD) | | | | ADC VASARCO TREASURER PIO MEDICAL DEPUTY PIO INTEL COMMO EQUIPMENT QUARTERMASTER You will find on this list 15 Offices. (Yeah I tagged on VASARCO). 15 people is a lot to run BRMRG. I don't know if we can find 15 officers. But the alternative is trying to run the group with 8 and then having 4 of them quit. Each office, I feel is endowed with relatively equal amounts of responsibility. Perhaps the two committee chairs have the least amount of "work" but that should free them to fill in the inevitable gaps. Everyone else has specific authority, in a defined hierarchy, with clear people to act as both their overseers and closest supporters. Ultimately the Chair is accountable for the entire functioning of the group. This is a big chunk of thought which I have been churning for a long time. The schematic I have just presented is the ultimate result. Its goal is to redistribute the responsibility of overloaded officers to underused officers. Its premise of committee's is based on the success of this years OPS committee, and the success of associating BOD members with those committees. The last time we discussed OPS we had different ideas about how it worked. Hopefully we can agree on one system that performs all the necessary functions of our organization. I wrote this obviously not as a definitive statement, but as a launching point for conversation. We can certainly debate it endlessly (what do we make of Justin's controversial decision to put OPS and Training at the same level of the two BOD members.... oooooooh, daring!) but I hope that when the time comes around to pick new officers, the new BOD will have a useful structure endorsed by the membership. I would strongly encourage discussion with the membership before anyone simply delineates who will do what. Respectfully Submitted So That Others May Live, BJFR-----------------------------------------------------------------------There are only 4 positions specified by the BRMRG Bylaws: - 3 people on the BOD - a training officer The BOD is then responsible for filling officers. The positions seem to change every year with the goals of the group and member enthusiasm. Although, maybe Bob could enlighten us with a heartwarming story about the 1982 BRMRG Intelligence Officer? I wonder if he/she uncovered the same underground info from the Pep Band... - Lauren -----------------------------------------------------------------------
While it is laudable that everyone be concerned and interested in the structure of the officer positions for the upcoming year, please remember that very little is set in stone. BRMRG members are human, and by that fact get burnt out, leave the group, quit, and generally just sometimes don't do their jobs. So...the officers and the supporting positions can often be dynamic. In fact, when I was chair.... the BOD was extremely dynamic. Was it ideal? No not really, but we thrive on the dynamic tendencies of human nature. It is the essence of what we do. So, as long as everything gets done (functions, not people...it is the ICS way) I think the group will be ok. Jenn-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BRMRG Friends, I am really enjoying the email conversation we are having about the new restructuring, it shows a new trend of openness and conversation in the group that is wonderful! I know that the new BOD has been planning on having a whole group conversation about this topic, so have no fear - to my knowledge they are not ignoring us. Still I would like to echo Jen and Lauren's statements that officer structuring is by definition the prerogative of the BOD. As long as functions are filled, they have the authority to structure officers as they feel is best. I am sure that we are all fully supportive of the BOD no matter what decisions they make, and will do our utmost to make BRMRG better every year. That said, someone has requested a brief history of the Ops world, I feel that I am capable of giving a competent accept of the recent history (the last 3 years) and hopefully give some historical perspective on the issue. 3 years ago, and before that as far as I know, BRMRG OPS was taken care of by 2 people, an Operations officer and a BOD contact. The Operations Officer was horribly overworked because they served several functions in the group: 1. They managed the Operations Committee, which means they were responsible for making sure Com, Medical, Equipt, etc. all did their jobs. 2. They negotiated ASRC Ops Policy 3. They filled Ops Kits and took care of the day-to-day maintenance of the group this Operations Officer had 1 helper, the BOD contact person, who was mostly available as an advisor. 2 years ago I took the Ops officer position and found that filling all 3 of the above functions was nearly impossible and had mixed results. At this time Justin published his officer manifesto (a document I agree with) and we suggested some long term changes to Ops. These changes have been made in incremental steps over the years in hopes that eventually all the functions within ops can be filled to the best of the groups ability. The First change we made (2 years ago) was to add ADC to the Ops Committee, this made communication from ASRC to OPS to ADC about issues *MUCH* easier, and let the ASRC policy person keep informed of events. Second of all we Re-Introduced (last year) the Deputy Ops function (this had been unsporadic in the past) and we made that person responsible for filling Ops Kits and day-to-day maintenance of the group. This freed the OPS person up to focus on their other tasks. So Last year under Jared this change was institutionalized with fabulous results! The Operations Officer was then responsible for 1. Management of the Ops Committee 2. ASRC Operational Policy The Deputy Ops function took care of 1. Ops Kits and Day to day Maintenance The BOD contact still existed as an advisor Quickly Jared found that ASRC policy was a thorn in his side so we functionally separated it off as another officer position thus Ops looked like this: Operations Officer (Jared) -managed the Operations committee Deputy Ops (Gary) -Ops Kits and day to day functioning of the group ASRC Policy (Emily) -ASRC Policy and talking to Peter McCabe a lot! BOD Contact (Jason Powell) -Advisor to all of Ops No one will argue that last year's division of Ops Labor worked really well. but some people think there is STILL one last change that *could* improve ops. This year the BOD is suggesting only one SMALL change in this past, and proven structure of Ops. They are suggesting that the function of the BOD Advisor and the Manager of the Ops committee be combined into one person (Suzanne Esterson). This move may or may not be controversial, and I happen to support it for a number of reasons. First of all the separation of Ops officer from the BOD has caused some strange issues in my experience. On any given day the Ops officer should be one of the most informed members of BRMRG about policy and practical problems. In the past this officer then had to advise the BOD and wait for them to make decisions. Under the proposed new structure the middle man will be removed, Ops and the BOD will be well informed. Who better to vote on the management of BRMRG than our most informed officer = OPS. Secondly, the argument has been made that the bod/ops person will be likely to burn out. I will argue that this person will actually have LESS Ops work than any other ops officer in history! and so will be less prone to burn out than either Jared or I were. Still we must admit that Ops is an incredibly demanding job, and will need the entire group's support. Thirdly, If we are EVER going to try to make this change then this is the year to do it. If this change fails everyone will gladly admit it, if it succeeds then BRMRG will have a new tool to enter into the next century. If it fails then lets try it now, when we have an incredibly strong Chair of the BOD (Justin) who can handle the issues as they arise. Justin has an AMAZING track record for making things happen in BRMRG. He renovated Alumni Finance, ADC, and Training in his first 3 years. He is one of the most knowledgeable people in the group about all aspects of our functioning, and I respect his opinion in Ops as much as any former Ops officer. If we are to try this change, let us do it while we can tap his recourses as chair. Fourthly it has been argued that all 3 members of the BOD are needed to provide "Vision" to BRMRG. I have some questions with this position: Why do we need 3 "vision" officers and only one person running the day to day group? I think that by definition ops management IS "Vision" work. All management within BRMRG requires vision. It requires the setting of short and long term goals and the ability to work with officers to achieve those goals. Who better than the BOD to do that sort of work? who better than the BOD to run Ops? This is my take on the situation at hand. Like you I am looking forward to hearing from the BOD, please continue to ask questions and let the BOD know what you think - I am sure they appreciate all involvement. Respectfully Submitted, Emily-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is one change in the operational structure of the group next year and it is an important one, in our opinion, but its not earth-shattering. What we call "Ops" is one word which means three things: 1. Managing the ops committee (commo, equip, deputy ops, etc.) 2. Keeping ops gear ready (Deputy ops work) 3. Representing BRMRG to the ASRC ops committee and coordinating ops policy Function 1 this year was performed by Jared. Function 2 was performed by Jared and Gary. Function 3 was performed primarily by Emily, although Jared certainly was involved. Jason Powell was the BOD officer charged with overseeing the ops side of things. This year, Suzanne will perform function 1, Maren will perform function 2, and Emily will perform function 3 (well it won't be that clean cut, but those will be their main functions). The only change is that the management of the operations committee, the group charged with maintaining the operational readiness of BRMRG, will be handled by a member of the BOD. For the visual learners in the crowd, last years officer structure looked like this: Chair BOD Ops (&VASARCO) BOD Finance (& intelligence) | | | | | Ops--------------Ops Policy Training Finance PIO HAT -Deputy Ops ADC -Commo -Eq -Medical/TJEMS (that doesn't look quite right, the GTO officially reported to the chair) This year's proposed officer structure looks like this: Chair -Records -Safety -Y2K -Intelligence -VASARCO BOD Ops Training BOD Finance -Deputy Ops -Ops Policy -Eq -Finance -ADC -Dep. PIO for HAT -Commo -PIO -Medical/TJEMS (Ideally the groups under BOD Ops and BOD Finance would be envisioned as circles, but Telnet won't let me) In our opinion, this represents a fruition of the union of BOD oversight and internal committee structure which has been developing steadily over the last three years. Along from training compassionate, professional, and exceptional searchers, maintaining operational readiness is What We Do. Weaving the management of this important function into the warp and weft of the BOD will allow the leadership of BRMRG to be intimately connected into the functioning of the group. It will allow information generated in the operational circle to be automatically part of the information pool of the BOD. It will allow BOD decisions to be made with a clearer understanding of how the group is actually functioning. There are several potential problems with this structure that have been observed, but in our opinion they don't outweigh the advantages. Some have suggested that BOD for Ops will be overburdened with "other BOD stuff" to effectively be "Ops." But she will have 1/3 the work of any ops officer in recent history, and there isn't any more important BOD function that managing the operational readiness of this group because it is What We Do. Some have suggested that the learning curve for a new BOD ops person would be pretty steep, but it would be steep for anyone besides Emily Gary and Jared, and all of them have promised to help get the Ops committee off and running. I am quite confident that by the time things get rolling in Sept. these potential problems will have been head off and we will begin to reap the benefits of integrating Operational Readiness into the fabric of the BOD. Hopefully at the Officer meeting we will be able to discuss this further and clarify how all this fits into the bigger picture of things. And certainly the officer meeting will be a time to entertain changes and suggestions for improvement. Nothing in BRMRG is ever cast in stone, and the BOD's plan could certainly be subject to change. I very much look forward to hearing new ideas about how we can make the group better!BJFR