by anymouse » Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:33 am
malarious wrote:You can often find contacts for people you are not supposed to. The thing is, we don't really have someone between her and a SMART advisor. So it limits our options on what we can do when these things happen. If they wanted us to have it, they would have included it in our handbooks.
Are you claiming that I (we) are not supposed to be able to find the information I pointed out to the OP? If so, how do you justify such a claim?. The information is not classified, no law was broken, no regulation, order, or induvidual’s privacy was violated?
Alternatively, are you claiming the director is not to be contacted? If so, under what justification? As you pointed out, “we don’t really have someone between her and a SMART advisor.” It’s fair to assume that if the director grew weary of participants calling her office, that she is capable of creating and filling a position that is, as you stated, between. Hence, all the more reason to call. Not only would participants get the information they require, but they’d be improving the program overall while creating a job for someone. Isn’t that the kind of transformation the DoD needs?
Regarding your final comment, whether the program wants us to have the director’s contact info or not is irrelevant. If the DoD was not interested in someone who looks beyond the confines of the provided information to solve a problem, then why does the SMART program exist? Is it merely a ploy to siphon educated sheep into its workforce?
[quote="malarious"]You can often find contacts for people you are not supposed to. The thing is, we don't really have someone between her and a SMART advisor. So it limits our options on what we can do when these things happen. If they wanted us to have it, they would have included it in our handbooks.[/quote]
Are you claiming that I (we) are not supposed to be able to find the information I pointed out to the OP? If so, how do you justify such a claim?. The information is not classified, no law was broken, no regulation, order, or induvidual’s privacy was violated?
Alternatively, are you claiming the director is not to be contacted? If so, under what justification? As you pointed out, “we don’t really have someone between her and a SMART advisor.” It’s fair to assume that if the director grew weary of participants calling her office, that she is capable of creating and filling a position that is, as you stated, between. Hence, all the more reason to call. Not only would participants get the information they require, but they’d be improving the program overall while creating a job for someone. Isn’t that the kind of transformation the DoD needs?
Regarding your final comment, whether the program wants us to have the director’s contact info or not is irrelevant. If the DoD was not interested in someone who looks beyond the confines of the provided information to solve a problem, then why does the SMART program exist? Is it merely a ploy to siphon educated sheep into its workforce?