#prcommittee

Being the only district committee chaired by two individuals, it takes a lot of compromise to reach a consensus.

This is true for many things. Both Catherine and I should be fighting for our own opinions, but at the same time we have to mesh well when it comes to decisions.

One person cannot decide to do something without the others' approval.

Sometimes it's hard to respect those decisions, but we have to. That's what trust is. In fact, trust is the backbone of our society.

Many failures arise when trust is breached.

Relationships, financial obligations, life and death, all depend on trust.

You trust your significant other to be there, and be faithful. You trust that the banks will give you credit, and they trust that you pay them back. You trust in society to keep you alive.

Therefore, any working relationship between any body of people depends on this abstract notion of trust. Trust isn't something that can be quantified. There are numerous measures to help try to quantify trust such as your credit rating, but they're always flawed in the most human sense possible. Trust is based on emotion, and reflexively, emotion is also hard to quantify.

I feel like I'm getting off topic, but let me assure you that this has a purpose.

We trust in people, who trust in us, who trust in others, who others trust in them... where does this cycle begin or end? 

How do we define this? Obligation? Integrity? Virtue? Chilvalry?

This post has nothing to do with the district website, but this has everything to do with the district technology chair position.

The Public Relations Committee is often regarded as the Publications Editor's committee, but now it's a jointly chaired committee. Though, even then, the committee is considered more of the brainchild of the Publications Editor.

I mean how could you deny the Publications Editor the title to the Public Relations Committee?

So therein lies Catherine's problems and my problems. How do we refocus this committee? How do we cement its worth as a district committee?

We believe that this new committee could grow and prosper in so many ways. In fact, they should be complementary and add to the experience of all Circle K'ers within California-Nevada-Hawaii.

We lack the connection to the outside world. Circle K'ers often consider this the "Circle K Bubble." When we go outside and identify ourselves as Circle K, "What is Circle K?"

We should be a known presence. We run service projects with 400 attendees. We help the elderly keep their house from being evicted. We paint fences. We do a lot. But who appreciates it other than the Kiwanis family?

So, we've decided to rework the committee. We've decided to sent precedents that we would either look back and say yeah that didn't work or yeah that worked! It's about trying new things.

Therefore, deciding who gets to take on these positions within our newly arranged committee is one of the hardest things Cat and I will have to do for the forseeable future.

Do we split it between north and south? Do we have half girls and half guys? Do we emphasize personal growth? Or do we emphasize professional experience?

Today, we had our first round of interviews. And while I do admit to having a small bit of confirmation bias, these interviews made me reconsider my predispositions.

To be frank: I'm torn.

How does one decide amongst friends and potential members?

How does one be objective? How does one say no? How does one decide one qualified candidate amongst qualified candidates?

No matter what we decide. We're decidiing for the best interests of the individuals and our goals for the committee. Even if that means saying no to some of our best candidates, our friends, our fellow Circle K'ers. 

Now onto day two of interviews...