Agenda -- NPDA Business Meeting, November, 2001
Friday, 6:30, Hilton in Atlanta, GA
Officer's Reports and Announcements
Old Business
a. A constitutional amendment to change proxy voting
procedure.
Amend Article VI: Annual Business Meeting of the Association,
Section 3.
Current text: No member institution represented at a Business
Meeting may vote more than 10 proxies in addition to its own
vote.
Proposed change: No member institution represented at a
Business Meeting may vote more than 2 proxies in addition to
its own vote.
Justification: Representatives should be party to the
discussion and debate on important business. This encourages
participation in national business.
--John Meany, Claremont College
b. An amendment to eliminate a second randomly paired
debate.
An amendment to Bylaw XII: Tournament Operating Procedures.
Section F. Scheduling of the Debates. Subsection 2. Randomly
paired debates.
Current text: The first two debates shall be paired randomly
except that care shall be taken to ensure that teams from the
same geographic regions do not meet.
Proposed change: The first debate shall be paired
randomly.
Justification: The tournament should pair debates to
appropriately set the elimination round bracket. A second
randomly paired debate increases pairing inequities. A debate
team, for example, may debate two late-elimination round
teams in the first two debates and another, like-situated
team may debate two relatively inexperienced teams. The
tournament should reduce this sort of inequity with a single
randomly paired debate.
In addition, the tournament should do away with any pairing
restriction based on geographic diversity. This might have
been meaningful in the early days of parliamentary debating,
when debate teams rarely debated teams from outside their
local area. Today, it is quite common to travel and debate
schools from around the country at many tournaments. In
addition, the national tournament offers considerable
geographic diversity in the pool of attending institutions.
Debaters experience geographic diversity of opposing teams
during the eight preliminary rounds of competition. The
tournament should have pairings determined by the performance
of individual teams rather than the geographical location of
their school.
--John Meany, Claremont Colleges
c. An amendment to Bylaw XII: Tournament Operating
Procedures. Section F. Scheduling of the Debates. Subsection
3. Power-matching. Subsection (a).
Current text: Rounds 3-8 will be power matched based on each
team's cumulative record through the previous round.
Proposed change: Rounds 2-8 will be power matched based on
each team's cumulative record through the previous
round.
Justification: Corollary to previously listed proposed
change, providing a power matched round in the second round
of the tournament.
--John Meany, Claremont Colleges
d. An amendment to increase the number of judge
strikes.
An amendment to Bylaw XII: Tournament Operating Procedures.
Section G. Judge Assignment. Subsection 2.
Current text: Each team will be allowed to strike a limited
number of judges from the pool. This number will be
determined in advance by the tournament director. These
strikes will take effect as soon as possible after they are
received by the tabulation staff.
Proposed change. Each team will be allowed to strike at least
25% of the judging pool. The percentage will be determined in
advance by the tournament director. These strikes will take
effect for all preliminary and elimination debates.
Justification: Tabulating software will allow a significant
number of strikes without interfering with judge assignment
for debates. The proposed increase in the number of strikes
will improve judge accountability and reduce team-judge
conflict and, at the same time, provide a large and diverse
judging pool for random assignment in debates. In addition,
the strikes will be available for the duration of the
tournament. There is no reason to have a strike list in
effect for a portion of the tournament. This creates inequity
(e.g., some teams are randomly assigned struck judges and
other teams avoid struck judges in initial preliminary
debates). If necessary, the judging pool can be posted
electronically, in advance of the tournament, to
participating schools or the parliamentary debate listserv,
such that all judge strikes can be coded prior to tournament
registration (perhaps this can be done or is being done for
this year's event). Striking prior to registration guarantees
that time pressure is not a reason to delay the
implementation of strike lists at the tournament.
--John Meany, Claremont Colleges
e. An amendment for judge certification.
An amendment to Bylaw XII: Tournament Operating Procedures.
Section H. Enforcement of Tournament Rules. Subsection
(1).
Current text: Enforcement of Section 4 of the NPDA Tournament
Rules (section entitled "during the debate") shall be the
province of the judge (or in the case of multiple judge
panels, of the Speaker of the House).
Proposed change: Enforcement of Section 4 of the NPDA
Tournament Rules (section entitled "during the debate") shall
be the province of the judge (or in the case of multiple
judge panels, of the Speaker of the House). To ensure
appropriate enforcement of the established rules, each school
attending the national tournament must certify, with its
registration materials for the tournament, that each listed
judge from its school has read and is familiar with the rules
of the national tournament and is willing to abide by the
rules. The tournament director and/or local host will certify
hired judges. Such certification indicates that the judge has
received a copy of the tournament rules, participated in a
comprehensive judge training session, or has become familiar
with the rules in some other manner. Uncertified judges may
not cover team entries.
Justification: It is not possible to "enforce" rules with
which one has limited familiarity. Many judges at the
national and other tournaments are unaware of the rules. It
is important for judges to know the rules to fairly
adjudicate contests.
--John Meany, Claremont Colleges
f. An amendment to promote clash in debates.
An amendment to Bylaw XIII: Tournament Rules. Rules of
Debating and Judging. Section 2. Objective of the
debate.
Current text: The opposition must oppose the resolution
and/or the proposition team's case. If, at the end of the
debate, the judge believes that the proposition team has
supported and successfully defended the resolution, they will
be declared the winner; otherwise the opposition will be
declared the winner.
Proposed change: The opposition must oppose the proposition
team's case. If, at the end of the debate, the judge believes
that the proposition team has supported and successfully
defended the resolution, as interpreted, they will be
declared the winner; otherwise the opposition will be
declared the winner.
Justification: These changes will promote clash in the
debate, The current language presumes a resolution existing
independently of its interpretation by the proposition team.
The proposed language change suggest that the resolution does
not have a fixed meaning prior to contextualization by the
proposition team. In addition, the changes promote clash by
directing opposition argument to the proposition case rather
than to a different understanding or interpretation of the
resolution. As any statement may have myriad reasonable
interpretations, as well as other interpretations that are
contradictory, foolish, or maniacal, the claim that the
opposition could debate any of these, rather than the
presumably sensible position advanced by the proposition team
in a debate, undermines the purpose of adversarial
argumentation.
--John Meany, Claremont Colleges
g. An amendment to eliminate points of order and
privilege.
An amendment to Bylaw XIII: Tournament Rules. Rules of
Debating and Judging. Section 4. During the Debate.
Subsection (4F) Points of Order and subsection (4G) points of
Personal Privilege.
Current text: 4F. Points of Order
Points of order can be raised for no reason other than those
specified in these Rules of Debating and Judging. If at any
time during the debate, a debater believes that his or her
opponent has violated one of these Rules of Debating and
Judging, he or she may address the Speaker of the House with
a point of order. Once recognized by the Speaker of the
House, the debater must state, but may not argue for, the
point of order. At the discretion of the Speaker of the
House, the accused may briefly respond to the point of order.
The Speaker of the House will then rule immediately on the
point of order in one of three ways: point well taken, point
not well taken, or point taken under consideration. The time
used to state and address a point of order will not be
deducted from the speaking time of the debater with the
floor. A point of order is a serious charge and should not be
raised
for minor violations.
4G. Points of Personal Privilege
At any time during the debate, a debater may rise to a point
of personal privilege when he or she believes that an
opponent has personally insulted one of the debaters, has
made an offensive or tasteless comment, or has grievously
misconstrued another's words or arguments. The Speaker will
then rule on whether or not the comments were acceptable. The
time used to state and address a point of personal privilege
will not be deducted from the speaking time of the debater
with the floor. Like a point of order, a point of personal
privilege is a serious charge and should not be raised for
minor transgressions. Debaters may be penalized for raising
spurious points of personal privilege.
Proposed change: Delete the language.
Justification: These points are almost always "taken under
consideration." In other words, they are merely disruptive of
the proceedings and are not subject to an immediate ruling
from the chair. This is even more the case in elimination
rounds, in which a speaker is unlikely to speak for the other
judges on a panel. In addition, if the speaker of a
multiparty panel does try to include other judges in the
deliberation or commentary of a point, the inclusion of 3 or
more voices during a debater's speech, particularly a
rebuttal, is so extraordinarily disruptive of the flow of the
speech that an opposing team tactically 'wins' many points,
even when the ruling is not in their favor.
These points cause considerable confusion in the debate. A
debater does not often know how to proceed on arguments that
are "taken under consideration." Debaters do not know if they
ought to counter _every_ instance of a potentially new
argument in a rebuttal speech. If they do not counter an
argument with a point of order, does this mean the judge
should not recognize it as a new argument? If they counter
two new arguments in a rebuttal with points of order, are
they unable to make more points (and, perhaps, seem
disruptive) or will the judge presume that the team is
conceding that other issues are not new to the debate? And,
in replying, for example, that a point is "well taken," is a
judge indicating that no other argumentation can be made on
the point or only that the present articulation of the
argument seems new? Points of privilege are even more
infrequently used and almost exclusively disruptive, having
little to do with the substance of a debate.
It seems that debaters ought to advance arguments in their
speeches and judges can 'take into consideration' anything
that is relevant for decision-making at the conclusion of the
debate without the intrusion of frequently unnecessary and
often confusing points of order and privilege.
--John Meany, Claremont Colleges
h. An amendment to provide additional information
regarding tournament success.
An amendment to Bylaw XII: Tournament Operating Procedures.
Section I. Awards. Subsection (6) Season Sweepstakes.
Add an additional subsection (d) with the following
language:
The NPDA will certify sweepstakes results, based on the
criteria outlined in the NPDA Constitution, Article VII, in
each of the following categories: Overall, Varsity, Junior
Varsity, and Novice. The NPDA will publish a sweepstakes
ranking of the top twenty-five (25) schools and the top ten
(10) two-year colleges on the NPDA website.
Justification: This sweepstakes certification increases the
information with which programs are able to provide
promotional information, both within a college or university
and to outside individuals and groups. It provides
recognition for students in their competitive divisions. It
increase the number of recognized schools, an important
consideration as the organization continue to expand. It will
not increase costs, as there is no formal award other than
official sanction by the NPDA of annual rankings.
--John Meany, Claremont Colleges
i. An amendment to create a judge training session.
Amendment to Bylaw XII: Tournament Operating Procedures.
Section (A) Tournament Staff.
Proposed addition:
It is the responsibility of the tournament director to
establish a time and location for judge training during the
administration of the national tournament. The tournament
director will select one or more representatives to conduct
training sessions regarding tournament rules. Participating
judges must attend the training session to judge at the
tournament. If a judge has previously participated in a
training session at the national tournament, the judge may
receive a waiver for future training sessions, with the
exception of a training seminar for any rules changes from
the previous training session. Schools are responsible for
hiring judges to replace any of their judges failing to
attend the training session.
Justification: This procedure will familiarize judges with
the rules for the national tournament and permit questions
and exploration of the scope of established rules.
--John Meany, Claremont Colleges
j. An amendment with regard to judges.
Amendment to Bylaw XII: Tournament Operating Procedures.
Section (G) Judge Assignment.
All adults ineligible to compete at the national tournament
are eligible to judge the event. The tournament may not make
any notation on a judge or strike list indicating a special
status for judges, including first year judging.
Justification: This will allow qualified individuals to judge
at the national tournament, without discriminatory status
references (e.g., "first year out" or "Irish").
--John Meany, Claremont Colleges
k. An amendment with regard to tournament
disclosure.
An amendment to Bylaw XIII: Tournament Rules. Rules of
Debating and Judging. Section 5. After the Debate.
Proposed addition:
After the completion of tabulation for each preliminary round
of debate and the announcement of the subsequent preliminary
round of debate, for round 1-7, the tournament director or
designated representative will post the win/loss and
individual speaker results of the preceding debates, in a
conveniently located room or public space.
Justification: This addition will provide tabulation
transparency for the
event, increasing accountability,
improving communication about practice, and providing a
secondary check on results accuracy.
--John Meany, Claremont Colleges
l. An amendment with regard to judge decision
disclosure.
An amendment to Bylaw XIII: Tournament Rules. Rules of
Debating and Judging. Section 5. After the Debate.
Proposed change: Delete sections 5a, 5b, and 5c.
Current text:
5A. After the final rebuttal, the Speaker of the House will
dismiss the teams, complete
the ballot and return it to the tournament director. The
judges should not give oral comments before theballot is
completed and returned to the tournament director.
5B. After returning the ballot, the judge may, at his or her
discretion, give brief constructive comments tothe debaters.
Judges should refrain from announcing the decision. After
these comments, debaters andcoaches will refrain from seeking
further information about the debate from the judge.
5C. Debaters or coaches will refrain from requesting that
judges reveal decisions. Debaters or coaches who harass
judges for information may be withdrawn from the tournament
on a two-thirds vote of the Tournament Committee.
Amended wording: At the completion of each preliminary and
elimination round of debate, judges are required to verbally
announce their decision. The judge will be given a three
minute period of time to explain the decision of the debate.
Immediately following the announcement of the timed three
minute period, judges must return ballots to the tabulation
staff. Judges may engage debaters regarding decisions after
ballots are delivered to the tournament staff. Judges must
announce decisions but debaters are under no obligation to
listen to decisions. Debaters may be excused from the
competition room at their request prior to the announcement
of the decision. Students and Coaches should avoid harassing
critics regarding decisions.
Justification: Decision disclosure is a tool for judge
education and consistent decision-making; a guide for
improved practice for participants; a move to open
communication in a critical community; a legitimate check on
unaccountable decision-making; a needed secondary check on
tournament tabulations; and a means to promote fairness in
disclosure (a method to eliminate problematic 'selective'
disclosure).
--John Meany, Claremont Colleges
3. New Business
a. Proposal to make President's Reception Optional
Proposal: In Bylaws XIII A 3 b change "shall" to "may."
Justification: for logistical reasons, to help the tournament
flow smoothly, the Tournament Director and Host have proposed
eliminating the President's Reception this year. The above
change would enable that plan.
--Tom Kuster, Bethany Lutheran College
b. Proposal to permit engaging "public" or "celebrity"
judges for semi-final and final rounds
Proposal: Add to Bylaws XI G Judge Assignment a new section
6. "None of the above shall preclude engaging a number of
qualified "public" judges, prominent members of the
intellectual community who are not necessarily coaches or
former debaters, who would join judging panels in semi-final
and final rounds. Such judges will be identified to
participating debaters prior to the start of the tournament
and will submit statements describing their background and
philosophy. They will be suitably trained and oriented to our
debate procedures in advance of their judging. Such judges
will not exceed in number 40% of any judging panel. These
judges may not be stricken by any team."
Justification/Logistics: If approved by the membership, here
is a way to proceed.
1. The local host and local staff (with suggestions from
others) will brainstorm a list of 20 or so suitable prominent
citizens who are either near the host site or who might be
persuaded to be there for this occasion. The list would
include addresses and other needed contact information.
2. The Tournament Director and the NPDA president will draft
and co-sign letters of invitation to these persons in some
order of priority, until we have an appropriate number of
acceptances.
3. The Tournament Director will appoint a "public judge
hospitality committee" (that is, a judge training committee)
whose task will be to prepare these judges BEFORE the
tournament, and to greet and accompany them AT the tournament
in a manner befitting their status. Besides showing them
hospitality, the goal of this committee is to assure everyone
- both the judges themselves and competitors - that these
judges understand their task and can do a good job. The
"hospitality committee" will ask each public judge to do such
things as...
- read orientation materials about parli rules and procedures
including basic decision principles ("not your belief, but
who debated better," etc.)
- arrive at least one round early to witness a tournament
debate prior to the one they judge
- visit for a half hour or so with two or three select
experienced judges, discussing their task
The committee would also be charged with developing a
questionnaire to produce a "judging philosophy" from these
judges.
4. The care and nurture of the public judges would be turned
over to the hospitality committee, who will make sure they
are well oriented.
5. The function and identities of the public judges will be
well publicized to all participants prior to the
tournament.
6. The NPDA publications committee will be asked to take
steps to maximize the favorable publicity the tournament
might obtain from the engagement of these well-known
judges.
Reasons supporting this proposal:
1. It highlights what we are. NPDA promotes parliamentary
debate, an academic activity that prepares students well for
engaging in public discourse, and we can demonstrate that
powerfully by engaging able public critics in our most
important rounds. Public discourse is what we (NPDA)
do.
2. It enriches the climax of our tournament, adding another
dimension of challenge and excitement to the closing rounds
for both debaters and audience.
3. It builds bridges between academe and the community, and
in particular between our activity and the "public dialogue"
- our best debaters become better known "out there," and our
activity demonstrates its relevance to the ongoing discussion
of public issues in the real world.
4. In a ripple effect, NPDA debaters throughout the
tournament - perhaps throughout the season - must give more
thought to how they can be effective before such
judges.
5. It encourages the continuance of an important NPDA
tradition. Cf.early constitution which called for significant
numbers of non-coach judges at all tournaments.
6. It would fuel endless and fascinating discussions
regarding how and why ballots split between and among public
and coach judges - and after a while, if the custom
continued, even provide a body of data useful in evaluating
how we are doing as an educational activity.
7. The PR possibilities could be significant. Would this help
us get the attention (that we deserve) from C-Span? CNN? The
national weeklies? Certainly we would be more interesting to
newspapers, not only in host cities but in the home
communities of participating teams.