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. "

  See attachments from Edwards and Larson. (well, there aren’t really attachments, but if anyone needs copies, Cate has oodles of them, and they will remain in the NDT Committee Chair file for all of posterity.)

 

(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.

10) Treasurer Report:  Brett  O'donnell

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. 

 

Scott Deatherage: we've had NDT on Easter before, Colorado College.

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.

(16)                    Third party contacts during rounds

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