NCA 2002 , New
Orleans, LA
Attending: tc
winebrenner, glenn frappier (absent), Rollins, sternhargen, brossman (tardy),
smith, parcher (rao in for parcher), perkins, stannard, odonnell, palcaewski,
zompetti (absent), partlow
(1) Unanimously approved minutes from 2002 NDT
meeting.
(2) Approval of district dates. Feb 21-23, Feb 28, Mar 1-2, 2003. Approved
(3) Standing Committee reports (and make new
committees)
A.
Judge philosophy book (Berry, Frappier and Rollins)
B.
District bid allocation
(_____, Palczewski, and Partlow)
C.
Appeals (Partlow,
Smith, Perkins, Frappier and Rollins
D.
Tournament procedure
(Parcher, Panetta, Mitchell)
no
panetta or mitchell--off commtiee
E. topic
slection--mancuso
Mancuso
wants the committee to pass info to him.
(4) Ad hoc committees:
1.
Ad Hoc committee on hosts: Deatherage, Perkins,
Smith
2.
Ad hoc Digital sub-committee (Ross Smith,
Perkins, Berry, Winebrenner)
3.
Report of electronic bid submission: Bruschke
4.
Ad Hoc committee to investigate computer
assignment of judges: (Ross Smith, Deatherage, Bruschke, and Nate Smith.)
(5) Eligibility chair volunteers.
The Chair made
the request that someone else do that position because of nature of other
commitments in spring. Dallas Perkins
noted that rules interpretations go to chairs--that may not be role of chair,
but have been giving advice. Ross
Smith noted problem with appeals committee chair and that the way the rules
work it has to go through the chair. It made sense that the chair took in
the information, noting that the committee tried the other way and it didn't
work and added layers of bureacracy to the process.
The Chair noted that the standing rules say the position is to be appointed
or elected. If the committee has come to this conclusion then it needs to
put it in writing.
The Chair noted
that the committee may have to approve 2004 host at the Northwestern meeting.
She noted that there will be a will be report re: 2004 host later in
this meeting, but the NDT Board of Trustees has not taken action on the proposal.
Board will give prelim report today.
The Chair decided
to skip Old Business for the moment.
(6) New Business
A. Second round issues
1.
Issue one: 50% pre-district requirement: Amend IIC2c2 to read: All teams selected through
the Second Round At-Large process must have a 50% or greater preliminary round
win-loss record in rounds on the fall CEDA topic or its NDT topic parallel
immediately prior to the District tournament or immediately prior to the
submission for second round bids.
TC Winebrenner
suggested that all competition needs to be included on submission form and
add phrase, at the time of submission of second round bids. Make statement: the team's record for every team …all tournament records from every
tournament attended must be indicated
on the application form. TC will help write advice page with the Chair.
The Chair promised she will get back to the Committee at Northwestern.
The Motion passes
without opposition.
2.
Issue two:
Is there a way to write the rules to both prevent sandbagging but still allow
a school to try and qualify a lower team --that would be ineligible for a
second round -- through districts (because they are seniors, etc.).
Is there a “contract” we could have people sign saying if the lower
team qualifies, they will not attempt to qualify the third team. As it is, the team at districts must qualify
if the 3rd team is to be eligible
Ross
Smith--these districts that punish themselves.
Each District can change it's own district's rules.
No
action was taken on this.
3.
Issue three:
Should we require that people indicate an intent to bid?
The Committee cited that it is just another
deadline that people will miss.
4.
Issue four:
Should we make clear
that the cover paragraph is only to explain extreme circumstances, and not
to tell us what good kids the debaters are?
The Committee chose to leave as is.
5.
Issue five:
Should we require the teams to figure their win/loss against pre-bids and
district qualifiers?
The Committee said "No."
(7)
Judge assignment
(report from Edwards and Larson)
A number of questions:
a. empirical
– is there a better logorhythm
a.
9 v. 6 categories
b.
1 v. 3 judges
The
Chair noted that we are an incredibly lucky group of people to have folks
like Larson and Edwards. At some point
in the future the NDT will be looking for a new tournament director. The NDT should always try to keep options open
for new tournament directors. She turned the floor over to Rich Edwards. Edwards gave a lengthy discussion of the two
systems.
"Gary
Larson and I (Rich Edwards) don't perceive any thin skins about the systems.
Tournament programs shouldn't become a black box and we need discussions.
"
(8)
Geographic Constraints
of Judges:
During
the discussion Edwards made it clear that the NDT tournament director saw
geographic judge placement as an absolute constraint and that if the committee
wanted to change this they should give direction to the NDT Tournament Director.
As such:
Dallas
Perkins amendment. Whereas evidence
seems to indicate that judge preferences could be better met without constraining
judges geographically, R: that the NDT committee believes and recommends to
the director that s/he reduce the strength of the geographic constraint.
The
motion passed.
The
Chair noted that the Committee wants to make it clear to the NDT Tournament
Director that we said reduce the strength not eliminate the geographic constraint.
(9) 2004 NDT
Proposal
Catholic
university proposal: Ron Bratt--Catholic
University. 2004 NDT.
Scott
Deatherage: urge programs to budget
accordingly and plan for the tournament hotel since it will be expensive.
Brett
O'Donnell: "I'm not sure that
it might not be wiser not to do second banquet and put the money into something
else."
Scott
Deatherage: The first banquet should
be undone, not the second banquet. Pre- tournament banquet is not always a part of the package.
The
Chair: in Email, Zompetti strongly
opposes getting rid of the first banquet.
Scott
Deatherage: could we do lunch on at the tournament on the first day?
Bratt: no lunch or dinner space on Friday--could do
breakfast.
As
a committee we thanked Ron Bratt for his proposal.
1
team w/ two judges =385. the rest
of the information will be forthcoming in the NDT newsletter.
(11)
Report on hosts: Dallas Perkins ad hoc committee:
2004
in good shape
2005
Gonzaga, Frappier has commitment to stay through '05.
Problem: Gonzaga's date is over Easter…not in compliance
w/ standing rules. If this is an issue
we need to say no to Easter today.
Katsulas:
strongly objects to Easter NDT.
The
Chair: The NDT will be on Passover next year.
She stressed the need to be consistent.
Perkins:
Thinks it is bad to respect one religion and not another.
Dallas
said that as courtesy, if the Committee is going to stop an Easter NDT then
let's do it now.
Stables: urges uniformity.
The
Chair asked who supports Gonzaga going forward with bid: 10 on the Committee in favor.
2006
interest--2 or 3 are interested.
Perkins
asked if there was interest in a non hosted NDT.
(1)
is there something bad about corporate sponsorship?
(2)
is there
a risk in a no host NDT? do
we need minions? can' t take an army
to fargo? are there other risks with not having a host who does not know what
is going on? The floor noted that
having a campus where you know who to call is an advantage.
(3)
revenue addiction.will we hurt ourselves
if we have a fancy NDT?
O'Donnell--no
host ndt, still need to have a host.
Smith: district chair could be host.
the
Chair: consensus emerging that no
host is possible, not immediately ruled
out.
"We
owe host committee an incredible amount of support. We ought to be giddy and giggling in the hallways."
(12) Tie breaks for seeding and speaker awards.
"Rule C:
2
should that not
resolve a tie, then use total points, then drop ballots down to a total of 12, then to judge variance."
Amendment to
standing rule C: 2. Partlow moves,
Dallas Perkins second. Unanimously approved.
(13) NDT qualification process: aiming at action by next years NCA with in
depth discussion at NU. Brossmann,
Stannard,
(14) supplemental strike sheets: okay.
(15) directors avoiding judging like the plague. 12 round rule, take up NU.
The
chair urged that committee members write up a motion for the Northwestern
meeting if interested.
(17)
Old Business:
B. Ranking
changes: irrelevant – see new rules
C. The
High School Question: Panetta motion: Rule
IV, F, #7programs should not encourage or expect high school guests to engage
in the process of producing or distributing research.
6-2-1 does not
pass by a 2/3rd majority, not binding on this year.
(14)
Violent language
debate--Concerned a debate at the NDT in
2002.
The Chair read
rule and collective gasp. it worked…
adjourned--3:47PM.
Respectfully
submitted,
Joel
Rollins
NDT
Secretary