ࡱ> [@ zbjbj44 "ViVir((((DD(lM*((((()))/M1M1M1M1M1M1M$NR,Q~UMS2))S2S2UM((jM;;;S2((/M;S2/M;;;J| L(( bԿ"@(4^K/MM0M#KQO8LQ$ L LBQOL) +v;/-,[.)))UMUM%(; (NDT COMMITTEE MEETING AT NORTHWESTERN Feb 6, 2005 I.Approval of minutes from NDT meeting, NCA meeting and Wake meeting summary. Minutes approved without opposition. Need to update standing rules and web updated. KL will try to get that done quickly. II. Reports A. Tournament director: Dr. John Fritch Pre bids Rankings due Sunday Feb 13. Will take be email or phone call. 319-989-9081  HYPERLINK "mailto:john.fritch@uni.edu" john.fritch@uni.edu There is an anti spam blocker so yahoo accounts might have trouble getting through. 1st rd rankings will be posted to e-debate and sent to Karla. They will also be posted at baylordebate.com Enter the tournament using the website. We will open the website. As you qualify, I will check to make sure the qualifying teams enter. Questions 1. Making judges easily identifiable?, 2. meals? 3. If you would like a letter sent to administrator? These should all be part of the online entry. We will be getting strike sheets out before the tournament this year. Tuesday at noon we will have the strike sheet out. The site will be locked a week before the tournament. I will be vary particular about the strike sheets being accurate. The NDT is the most important tournament of the year. You will still be required to sign a hard copy. You will also be notified of changes in the strike sheet at registration and asked to update. Registration will include a time in the morning and in the afternoon as in the past. I will try to distribute any changes to people as they occur. Bruschkes system will be used for strike sheet. We will download all the information and shut down the website at some point. Sometime weds night. We will still have the ability to make changes on site. Registration is my biggest concern right now. I will visit the campus. We will try to make some adjustments to the schedule to better reflect the amount of time needed between debates. Some need less time. B. Committee Chair: Dr. Karla Leeper We need cell numbers from each committee member. I have been collecting certification forms and positing on my website. I will post this stuff and the bids. Baylordebate.com C. Board of Trustees: Brett ODonnell I am here prepared to take dues or fees for at large bids. I will be posting lists to e-debate to show who has paid. You must pay prior to entering into the process. At the NDT we take credit cards, cash, travelers checks or school or certified checks. No personal checks. Credit cards are encouraged. D. 2005 host: Gonzaga University, March 25-28, 2005 Reception not a banquet on Thursday night. Sunday will have a banquet. E. Ranking Director: Jim Hanson As NDT rankings director, i am wondering if there would be opposition to replacing the tournament by tournament results in the second half of the ndt ranking report to results listed by each school (eg Baylor: Uuniv. 32 42, northwestern 50 50, etc. meaning Baylor received 32 varsity and 42 overall points at uni; 50 varsity/overall points at the northwestern tournament, etc.). rationale for this change: 1) it is more relevant information to coaches--they can more easily double check their points and also see what points they need to beat another school; 2) it is much easier for me to do--doing the tournament by tournament results has always added a good 5 hours of time because the results are not done that way and converting them to that format takes quite a while. i'm not definite that i want to do this but i'm hoping the ndt board will okay giving me the option to do so if it does turn out to be what i think would work best. Thinking of putting together a point system to reward improvement from one year to the next. He will put together a formal proposal. If you have ideas, please send them. F. Standing Committee reports 1. Judge philosophy book (Berry, Frappier and Rollins) Submit these or be fined. 2. District bid allocation (Mancuso and Partlow) Poll of estimated numbers attending districts. D1 14 2nd weekend D2 8 Ranking D3 20 2nd weekend D4 5-6 2nd weekend D5 14-15 2nd weekend D6 18 2nd weekend D7 19 1st weekend D8 12 2nd weekend D9 10-12 2nd weekend Intent to attend districts due February 15. 3. Appeals (Partlow, Smith, ODonnell, Frappier and Rollins) Check email if you are on the committee. 4. Tournament procedure (Frappier, Stables, Partlow) No report. 5. Topic Selection representative: Steve Mancuso China Civil Rights and War on Terrorism that will try to avoid HS topic Repackage Sp Ct into different legal areas To have only legal topics or not. Argument for other things will win and we know what students need. Argument against retention, they dont want a boring topic just to have a legal topic. Right now we dont have enough topics to give this choice. How important is a paper. Some topics we have confidence and vast experience and feel confident we can write a good topic. People on the committee would be nervous about putting it on the ballot. G. Ad hoc committees: 1. Ad Hoc committee on hosts: Deatherage, Perkins, Smith Dallas Texas The board is about to get involved. But, we may have a sponsor for 07. We need to find 08 and later. 2. Ad hoc Digital sub-committee (Ross Smith, Perkins, Berry, Winebrenner) No report 3. Report of electronic bid submission: Bruschke No report III. Old Business AFA membership (NCA meeting) This comes at the request of Pratt and Kate. Right now it is advisory. There is no language in the document that says a team must be from a school affiliated with the AFA. This makes it a requirement that the director or the institution have a membership in the AFA. It is a symbol we are encouraging people to be members. It is easy to verify. It is just to attend. Membership is $40. Any level of membership counts. It is a signal of good faith to the AFA. No discussion. Voice vote. Passes. One vote against (Rollins). Proposal: Amend Standing Rule II Participant Qualification. Sub A. General Regulations subpart 1 to say: Schools who have an institutional membership in the AFA, or whose director has an individual membership in the AFA, and who are subscribers to the NDT may qualify up to three teams This change would require a 2/3 vote of the committee to take effect for the 2005-2006 season. A majority vote would require a second vote in order for the change to come into effect. Judging eligibility (NCA meeting) Did not have language for this at the NCA meeting. There is some concern a student may debate part of a season and judge at the NDT. The third support would say cannot have competed in that years topic. Cannot have debated in the fall or graduated in December and judge at the NDT. Vote. Passes. Proposal: Amend Standing Rule III National Tournament Judges Sub. A to include a third subpart 3. Must not have competed on that years topic. Scouting Report Stefan. We have one scouting director so far Jenny Heidt We are trying to work on someone to fund her ticket, rental car, and food money for the weekend. Potential people James Herndon. District chairs need to be reminded that districts should contribute 2-3 rounds beyond the districts commitment to cover the 8 rounds per director. Adrian came to the NDT meeting at NCA. Resource request from school space Tab room resource request pairings and room lists. High school scouts the committee should decide. Move to add including scouting to the normative rule discouraging work by high school students. Vote Passes Budget office supplies, meals for directors and pizza for scouts, hotel and travel stipend (but we are trying to get them there with the eight round thing) If a schools contributed more than 2 full time scouts, the NDT would pay the observer fees only for those additional scouts. Or if there are schools that dont have a scout, they might pay the fee for those schools. Brett those fees would have to be absorbed somehow. 6 people is another $500 in the budget. While those folks are working for the tournament, the program that brings them gets some value from them. If you thought the tournament should do this, we could factor it into the fees in the future. I said no to the travel line for the same reason. Could we ask for donation of a certain number of dollars? Or paying for other teams? Adopt a scout program. Dallas the NDT should pay because it would discourage people from bringing scouts. Gordon long term viablity, is the consecutive nature of the tournaments Do we want to spend 2-3 k a year on the scouting? 10s of thousands of dollars are being spent. Pre tournament disclosure. Participants are required to submit affs and encouraged to disclose major negative arguments. Tournament disclosure. Non conventional argument disclosure. Judges or coaches who are not judging in a particular debate. For flexibility purposes, the tab room needs to not have rounds constrained. There is a big pool of people who could do a good job. Why cant we allow judge volunteers. Perhaps it would hold up the tournament. Tournament Booklet Still trying to figure out status of team pics. We are in a transition year and the committee agreed Fritch wouldnt have to do it. Karla will do it for one year only. We will begin an advertising process to search out someone who will take care of the tournament booklet. KL will be in touch with Brett. The book from the last NDT hasnt been finished yet. Karla will call Donn Parson. CSTV Deatherage is the chair of the CSTV committee. The subcommittee was instructed to address several issues. Agenda seems to have expanded b/c the issues are interrelated. Karla and SD had a call with Andy Regal of CSTV and the full subcomm met this morning. 4 parts Reaction to the 2004 video itself and the experience with respect to content related questions. No organized survey. But, anecdotal evidence suggests the committee shares relatively positive reactions to final product. There are interesting narratives that run through the piece that get a broader theme. This is a serious commitment, a lot of work, consuming in a constructive way, the experience overall is positive people believe it did a good job with this. Some people are satisfied with demonstration of the physical/intel challenge. There is ncern with the substance expressed by members of the board of trustees. The want us to take a hard look as a committee to the downsides and potential downsides of the project. Concerns: emperor has no clothes, could hurt programs if administrators dont like it. 1- Film doesnt do a lot to demonstrate the skills debaters learn from this experience and explain how it can be put in a real world setting. 2- Film does a poor job of demonstrating the argumentative process (the debates have substance, are complicated. 3- Film focuses on the unusual there is some disagreement here. 4 Film doesnt show what debaters can do after the fact. Interviewing former debaters can solve this connect the dots with I could not have done this without debate . . . We need to revisit our endorsement. The board will not be satisfied unless they believe we have given serious consideration to those concerns and have a plan to say it is a viable project. Andy was forthcoming in a couple of ways. He expressed openness to our working with the CSTV people to flesh out some of these ideas in the production process. He suggested a formal production input group. I suggested that we might see if we cant find someone to shepherd the CSTV crew through the tournament to talk to them about what they are seeing and what the point is. They seem open to this. Another idea we talked about this morning is to get Andy together with members of the board or committee to discuss these issues and hear the expression of these concerns. Potentially this could be done in writing or face to face. This would also allow more up front input. Hes a first amendment type of dude and doesnt want to be dictated to. But, they would like help because they were also discontent with their ability to show the complexity of the argument. SD suggested including a public debate to help explain. Presupposing that we can resolve legal issues and execution issues; did we think it was on balance a favorable thing for the NDT? Are we in favor of continuing it if we can satisfy the board. Dr. Dave Commercials for sports tout the schools involved in the games. You could do a similar thing with alumni. Talk about what they are doing. How debate is helping them and so forth. They may not want to do too much of that in the program. This wouldnt seem like censorship or slow down the excitement of the program. Fred we cant censor and dont really want to censor. If they are interested in knowing how to do the story it might be productive for a number of people to write alternate types of story boards or the story you would do. Here are the claims I would make and footage that would support it. If they had 6, this would help them to know what is possible. SD They told 2-3 stories and the story we gave them to tell. If we think there are more story lines, we need to help them find them. Kuswa Talking about research was helpful for our administrators. Talking about authors and showing files. Explicit descriptions of the research. Other suggestions were also forwarded. Ross I think it will be better next time. Given there are several suggestions, we should answer the broader question yes. There will be an attempt to improve and some relatively easy improvements that can be done. We can sit here forever with ideas. Coaches or judges can communicate if they make a point of asking. Tim There are 2 different entities. The corporate team which hires a production team which this committee might have more influence over. The amount of money put in is limited. A lot of up front ed needs to be budgeted for. The production team is critical. SD- we could look for local affiliates. But, return to Rosss point. I will type a list of ideas and circulate it. However, we need a demonstration from the committee as whole. Do we want to do this again if we can work out the liability and execution related questions? Karla part of the reason we need to answer these separately, we are going to get to her requests. We will never have control over content. If we are interested in pursuing them we need to think about how we can make them work for us and our students. Do we like coverage of the NDT? How do we want that coverage to happen? One is a philosophical question. One is a practical question. CSTV was given access to all debates. They had to get permission for events beyond the debates. 1- When does the debate begin and end? When can a student say dont film me. CSTV will endorse a framework where they have access to the debate but not necessarily outside of the debate. We have not confronted the question of what is a debate. 1AC-2AR, 1AC-decision, 1AC to conclusion of oral presentation. This is a problem for CSTV because they want to show as many aspect of that as they can. We need a definition agreeable to this committee and acceptable to CSTV. This assumes they get access to the debate and must request permission before or after the debate. Last year a team or two did not want to be filmed during the debates. This was negotiated at the last minute last year. We mistakenly gave people the impression they could say no inside the debate. We were saying they could say no outside the debate. If we dont give them access to every debate, they will walk away. One of the stories is a fight for a national championship. They do not want a winner they have no footage of. They had barely enough footage of MSU. Rollins what if students had a good reason? Deatherage we have had this vetted by several lawyers. They have concluded that we can say anyone who participates consents to be photographed and have those appear on TV. Karla is there a way we can protect someone who is in a situation personal safety situation. Sternhagen Isnt there a 3rd party who could be involved. We dont want to be in a place of making those decisions. Brett they would say no. They didnt want 3rd party mediation and would not take out the part about going to New York court to litigate. Sternhagen even before the beginning of the tournament. Dallas the issue is publication or taking the video? Rollins publication. Dallas today we allow anyone affiliated with an attending school to take video. Zomp we should stipulate to CSTV that there might be reasons for declining consent. Karla the number of people involved in situations like this should be small. There might be a limited set of parameters. If a student would be harmed by publication. We should let CSTV know that we are taking risks and they need to take a risk. Karla part of this is developing a relationship. They admit it was not universally positive. Rollins we asked them to move and they would not. SD It is clear from both sides that it was a negative experience. Both sides thought there was a dispute and it wasnt handled professionally. It surprised me because I had 20 positive interactions where Andy was professional and cooperative. After that Ive had positive interactions as well. We need to think about whether we can address this to satisfy the committee, Joel and CSTV. We need to revisit this issue in a way that relies on developing a trusting relationship, explain why this incident undermined that trust, talk about the unique nature of the stressful situation, and discuss a conflict resolution method. Mike how much was rooted in the lack of advance resolution. If it prior they may not be happy, but it would be easier. Karla And a clear definition of when the debate happened. SD there was confusion about rights and rights of refusal. Eber is right both were operating under different assumptions. When I asked them to turn away, they did so without question. We can produce a number of examples where they did so. Mancuso do you want to give the debaters the ability to say do not show our picture on TV. at all? Sternhagen I understand CSTVs position. But, we can fix a lot of this by time based sequencing. If they knew in advance, they wouldnt have to spend significant money. Dallas they have to do it long before the tournament. Deatherage there seems to be some sentiment for attempting to negotiate some language for escape clause for a situation that could impair someones safety. Karla If what we are asking is small and low risk to them, they should be willing to do this. Ross we are not endangering our students as long as we let them know. They can decide not to attend. SD- What we are putting at risk is the capacity of a single student to attend the NDT. Our discussions have suggested that we think it is a net positive for the NDT to promote the viability and operation of the NDT. Sternhagen to think that a real contender could face the choice of not having to be there is a big deal. We should distribute a survey to the students and get their reactions. Motion to negotiate an exemption. And then say no if they say no. Yes it is a deal killer. No means even if ultimately D1 no D2 no D3 yes D4 abst D5 no D6 no D7 yes D8 yes D9 no AFAS no AFA Midwest yes AFA ODonnell no AFA West yes So we negotiate and if they say no we continue anyway. SD this brackets the liability and other part of the agenda. Alternate proposal from Doug Robbins independent filmmaker in San Francisco. He wants to make a film. His vision is for commercial use, to take it to Sundance and produce a film that addresses other themes. He seeks to correct some of the boards concerns. It is the recommendation of the committee that we turn this down at this junction. 2 reasons 1 He has no money, no team, no contract. We have no guarantee there is a film that will ever be shown anywhere. 2- The current contract with CSTV bans this. We have a developed relationship. We could potentially go back next year and reconsider. Second proposal is from Northwestern film school. He wants to tell the history and tradition of the NU debate society. 2 year project starting in the fall 05 and wants to include the NDT. We believe that CSTV would accept this based on the fact that we are hosts and that it not be produced for commercial exploitation. Several people have expressed the notion that the NDT should have financial gain in our relationship with CSTV. Andy indicated the idea of a licensing fee is not acceptable. But, they do negotiate revenue sharing agreements. That should be worked out by the board. Liability issues. Report by the reconstituted committee on CSTV. We will need to vote on whether or not to renew the CSTV contract at this meeting. Remember, that our deadline was extended until the Tuesday following this meeting. Committee members should be ready to vote, and any proxies should know how to vote on this issue. If you have specific questions you would like addressed before we vote, I would encourage you to submit them to the group for discussion, or to submit them to Scott Deatherage for investigation by the subcommittee. Many of you have also received an email from Doug Robbins, a documentary filmmaker. He has asked for permission to videotape at the NDT. We will have to consider 1) whether this is a project we are interested in and/or 2)whether this is competitive or compatible with the CSTV proposal. The Bruschke Proposal (Wake meeting) We passed the Bruschke proposal by a bare majority at the Wake meeting. If we desire to put this proposal into effect, it must pass by at least a majority at a second meeting during this year. We may take this up at the pleasure of the committee. Sterhagen Questions decisions about travel schedule could be wildly messed up. If something happens in a particular weekend to prevent attendance, this might be a huge problem. Gordon straw poll of people here. It is not a perfect solution. But, we should not pretend. 1 yes 2 no 3 yes 4 no 5 no 6 no 7 no 8 no 9 no s no mw no east abst west yes Hansons request for an amendment to the Bruschke proposal I move that teams failing to attendat maximum one tournament inone ofthe regions required by the bruschke proposal through no fault of their own (e.g. a cancelled flight, documented severe illness), shall be given the opportunity to appeal their exclusion from the first round ranking process to the ndt ranking committee by submitting supporting documents and an explanation in writing to the NDT committee chair by the first round bidsubmission date. A majority vote of the committee shall permit said team to be included in the first round rankings. IV. New Business. Amendment regarding Hybrids Specific proposal has been forwarded. V.I. Keenan from the NY Debate coalition emailed me a request that we discuss the following proposal. This proposal is intended to increase debate participation and taking away the disincentive to have programs help each other. This is to allow teams to be hybrid under specific circumstances. The point is to allow program building. If a west coast team chose to increase participation be helping grow other programs but are not allowed to compete with the program they are trying to grow, it is a disincentive. Ex. Bard-Vassar A new program started through the hybrid process. After Bard Vassar started their program, they were trying to figure out whether they could participate. They would not have counted because they were a hybrid. Another example is the new school. Last year they had one debater. This year they have a novice team. If a team wants to compete at the NDT there is no benefit in the process. The appeals committee could prevent abuses of this amendment. There are also qualifiers. If a hybrid program applied it would count against both schools. Karla reads aloud the motion. Kuswa mileage. VI Coalition. The logistical issues involved are very difficult. The geography is different on the west coast. Sternhagen How does this make it more likely to have administrators want their own programs. Ed what prevents a coach from combining the best debaters from 2 different schools? VI There might not be preemption against that. But, eventually the other school would be developing a program at another school. Deatherage opposed for 2 reasons. One important mission is declaring a national champion. We cannot say we really have 2 national champions. Rarely occurs. But, does and has occurred. If only 1 in 15 years it is not a persuasive answer. It is injury to the integrity of the tournament. Steve if the goal is to encourage the hybrids to become separate programs, they do not need to come to the NDT to allow them to develop. Year after year means we should sunset this. VI I tried to think about this. I didnt put it in b/c we had separated out and financial disaster caused them to come back together. There is no reason a team couldnt shut down and restart even with a sunset provision. Fred What processes influence decision making? The support of the other programs gets to be enough? Cautions potential diffusing effect. Moorehead state and debate for you? If you are interested, talk to an attorney 3 times. Gordon Caught somewhere in between. Efforts to build programs. Everyone of us has a school in driving distance that does not have a program. There is nothing from yr one to 5 that prevents me from doing this. VI the rule is written to address these concerns Zomp why not CEDA VI you cant talk about CEDA and NDT. Should be moving toward the same line. Why is the NDT important to us? Ross - ? about the plan at what point in time is the question of meeting the criteria important? Is this something where a hybrid team needs to get approval. This makes a lot of sense if you submit documentation and prove that hes building a program at the other school. We could then say this is a valid attempt. They would be able to choose strategy to convince deans to fund new programs. This is for people who find themselves in a situation. SD I dont find the answers to the CEDA ? Persuasive. To 98% of administrators means national champions. Strategy that is aimed at a handful of administrators. Lee what is a debate program building strategy? An argument can be made that combining 2 budgets to allow travel. Ross friendly amendment to add subject to approval by the appeals committee. Question is called 1 no 2 no 3 yes 4yes 5 ? 6yes 7yes 8yes 9 yes syes mwno eno wyes 7-6 Have to vote again at the next meeting. Gonzaga NDT. Take this up with constituencies. Proposed amendment to the NDT standing rules, II.A.1 (amendment to clause b. or as an addition as rule II.A.1.h): "Team eligibility: The Hybrid Clause Subject to approval by the appeals committee prior . . . missed this part. . Intradistirct hybrid teams composed of two debaters from two different schools will be eligible for consideration in the first and second round bid process, as well as District competition if they meet the following criteria: 1) The schools represented by the debaters operate a joint program as normal operating procedure demonstrated by, but not limited to, shared budget, travel, coaching, meetings, practices, etc. AND 2)Such a combination of schools is generally represented as one program for the purposes of competition and is traditionally viewed as the same "team" AND 3) The reason for such a combination is to best facilitate the ability of the programs, not the individuals, to be represented competitively in intercollegiate competition, evidenced by the inability of at least one program being unable to participate without such a combination. These rules do not supplant any other eligibility requirements in number of rounds or tournaments attended for determining bids. Districts may make additional considerations or constraints on the participation of hybrids at those tournaments. Intradistrict schools in such a hybrid must pay all required dues for BOTH schools. (This is not a JOINT membership). The qualification of such a hybrid teams would count against the total number of qualifying teams for BOTH schools." Third Teams Table these motions Kevin Kuswa would like for us to reconsider the motion we talked about at Wake: All first teams from schools who have not yet qualified for the NDT through first round voting or district tournaments and who meet the requirements for second round bids are prioritized over second and third teams in awarding second rounds. After those first teams, the remaining second round bids shall be allocated to the remaining applicants by the tournament director based on their second round rankings. C. The Green/Jenkins Proposal Kevin Kuswa has asked that we reconsider the Green/Jenkins Proposal that was discussed at Wake Forest. &123467       < ( * J K . 4 ŷͷգrdZZh9_@OJQJ^Jh_ih_iH*OJQJ^Jh;h_i0JOJQJ^J'jh;h_iOJQJU^Jjh_iOJQJU^Jh_iOJQJ^Jh5}OJQJ^Jh5}CJOJQJ^JaJh_ih5}h5}CJaJh5}OJQJ^JhlOJQJ^JhC85OJQJ^Jh5}5OJQJ^J"&23  < ' e   gd_i 8^8`gd5}[$\$^gd5}gd5} 0^`0gd5}$ 0^`0a$gd5}$a$gd5}z V{]!"lm@A$a$gd7| 8^8`gd5}^gd5}gd 8^8`gd7|gd_i !lmou^dfgjltu?@⵨|rhOJQJ^Jh7|OJQJ^Jh9_@>*OJQJ^Jhh9_@OJQJ^Jh9_@OJQJ^Jhh7|OJQJ^Jh7|OJQJ^Jhh9_@OJQJ^Jh7|h7|OJQJ^Jh5}CJaJh5}OJQJ^Jh_iOJQJ^JhOJQJ^J)ANjk ":Oez ^`gd5} gd ^`gd 8^8`gd5}$a$gd7|Mjkms   !"#,-./19:;ABCDFNOPVWXѺѰѰѰѰѰѰѰѰўhKhh h h H*OJQJ^Jh OJQJ^JhKOJQJ^JhhOJQJ^JhOJQJ^Jh5}h5}CJaJh5}OJQJ^Jh7|hhOJQJ;XY[deflmnoqyz{}~124:mwxz" L$1R\]^o}и´촯ho h)d5h)dh9_@OJQJ^Jh5}h OJQJ^JhKOJQJ^Jh5}CJaJh5}OJQJ^JhKhh h H*h C12mx#$!"LYgd5} gd  gdK ^`gd5}RS]^|}n}  !!!"""^gd)d^gdK & Fgd)d gd)d ^`gd)d gdK !!n"t"""A#D#H#q#r####%%%&&&&&&&*I*J*+++,,,2,X,Y,h-i----////1 222222 33P3T33494B488;??n@BBȼhf9hEhVhlhZ_hM h*yh]L h6,xh7|h1 3hCh'(hoh)dh)d5h9_@h)dhKG""""?#@#r#s#t###$$H$I$$$%*%_%%%&&&|'}'gdo^gd9_@ & Fgd'(gd'(^gd)d}'(()I)J))))J*K**++++,,2,i-j------gdM  & Fgdlgdl & Fgd7|gd7|^gd9_@-.BSnTtTzTTTTTTTTTTTTTXUYUYYZ & Fgdgd;$gdNh^hgdN & FgdQ  & FgdE^gd9_@BhBlBFFFGGGGeHgHHHJOP PPPPQuR|RSSmTnTTTUU5WYY ZZ#Z$Z5\W]>^u^v^___```FbGbNbȰh5}OJQJ^J hlh7|h7|CJOJQJ^JaJh7|h5}h'(hf8hlhM hh;$hNh@qhVhC8hQ h*Bhr zhr zH*hr zhI.yh9_@hf94Z#Z$ZSZ5\6\W]X]}]v^_______________gdlgd & Fgd'(gd'(^gdlgdM  & FgdE__`GbNbobpbbbbccffgg+g,ggghh[h\hhh^hgdlgd & Fgdl[$\$^gd5}gdlNbQb_bnbobpbbbbcfffgg1g2ghrh|hjjko"p,pppqqrrOrXrrsssuuwwwwTxUx`xļ~vhjrhjr5hC8CJOJQJ^JaJ h7|hC8CJOJQJ^JaJ h7|hlCJOJQJ^JaJhYCCJOJQJ^JaJhYCh Fhxboh<hC8h hlhhh5}OJQJ^Jh5}CJaJh5}CJOJQJ^JaJ.hh j jjjkkllompmmmmm n+n,nooppqqbqcqvqwq|qgdl|qqqqqqqqqqqqqqrrrrrrssttLuSukvnvov 7$8$H$gdlgdlovewfwTxUxaxxxyxxxfzgzzzz^gdjrh^hgdjrgdw & Fgdjr 7$8$H$gdl`xaxwxxxyxxdzezgzzzzzzѶhhjrCJaJhhCJaJhJqhjr5hJqhJq5hjr hjrhjrhjrhjrCJaJhjrCJaJhwCJaJhjrh7|5 1h/ =!"#$%DyK john.fritch@uni.eduyK 6mailto:john.fritch@uni.edu@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH N@2N 5} Heading 3dd@&[$\$5CJ\aJDA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No ListNR@N 5}Body Text Indent 2dd[$\$6U@6 _i Hyperlink >*B*phr&23<'eV{] ! " l m @ANjk ":Oez12mx#$!"LYRS]^|}n}?@rst$HI*_|} !I!J!!!!J"K""####$$2$i%j%%%%%%&:KnLtLzLLLLLLLLLLLLLXMYMQQR#R$RSR5T6TWUXU}UvVWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWXGZNZoZpZZZZ[[^^__+_,___``[`\``` b bbbccddoepeeeee f+f,fgghhiibiciviwi|iiiiiiiiiiiiiijjjjjjkkllLmSmknnnoneofoTpUpapxpypppfrgrrrr000x00000(0000000000000x000x00 00(0x00 000x0x0x0x0x0000x0x0x0x0x0x0000000000 0 0x0 0 0 00000x0x0x0x0x0x000x0x00x0x0x000x00000x00x000 00(0  0 000(0 00x00x0x0x 000x00x0x0x0x0x000 0x00x0x00000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x0x0x0x000 0x0000 00 0x0  0 0x0x0x0x0x0x0x000x00x0x0H0x0x0x0 00x 0x 0x0x0x0x000 000x00x0x0000x0P0x0x0x0x0x0000(0x(00PZx 0PZx0PZ0PZx0PZx0PZx0PZx0PZx0PZ0PZx0PZx0PZ0PZ0PZx0PZ 0PZx0PZ`0PZx0PZ`0PZx0PZx0PZx0PZ`0PZ0PZx0PZx0PZx0PZ0PZx0PZx0PZx0PZ0PZ0PZ0PZ0PZ0PZ0PZx0PZ0PZ0PZ0PZh0PZ0PZh0PZx0PZx0PZx0PZx0PZx0PZx0PZ0PZx0PZx0PZx0PZ0PZx0PZx0PZx0PZ0PZ0PZ0PZ0PZ0PZh0PZ0PZ 0PZ0PZh0PZ0PZ(0PZ0PZ 0PZ0PZh0PZ0PZ(0PZh0PZ 0PZ 0PZ  0PZ 0 0p0x0x0x0x0x00XBNb`xz>BDEHLOS A"}'-Z_h|qovz?ACFGIJKMNPQRz@rX8@0(  B S  ?%3  4 M!5 !6 m 7 TN!8  !9  : O!; L!< l,!=  !>  !? ,!!@ 4A tB C D 䦒E $F dG H  I LJ K L  M LN O dϓP ϓQ ϓR $ГS dГT ГU ГV LW &   11LLSJ!J!f7f7@@@@OAOAHHMMrrrr      !#"$1 66RXXP!P!i7i7@@AAUAUAHHMMrrrr   !#"$ 9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity:*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStreet;*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsaddress="*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=!*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceTypeV#*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplacehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/8%*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate8$*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagstimeB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region  012220052536DayHourMinuteMonthYear%  $ #"!%  #############"! & ) [ ] f k '(1;IQ!!""\$`$%%%%&&((()]4b4>>??@@AAFFHH/H5HHI?KIKLLT T\UdUUUvVVWWXX~XXIYLY____``:dCdeeiiiiiikkhouopprrr,OQV[|" N A !29?NTcjy$EG}}@q$E' + K"e""""##E###2$a$P)R)11&7(7;;?$?KL$RRRUU+WNWWWWWWWWW\\\\_(___:d]dddddef5f:fffh!h"h-hchhiaiiiiiiiiiiillr33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333&277JK4V  , ] m f g j l t u zmxS\^$sst$H2!I!"#X$Y$G%i%%%''((((f77??@@HHLLLLQ#RoWWWWNZZ_+_1_2_q__a bbbbb_ddeechhciviiiUpxpgrrrrWFU  'y7*2zJb*(=~2&^+&bIJpv^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o(.   ^ `hH.  L ^ `LhH. xx^x`hH. HH^H`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`OJPJQJ^J. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o(.^`o(.  L ^ `LhH.  ^ `OJPJQJ^J.xx^x`o(. HLH^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.pv7*2&bI'y(=~2          zL        K|                 TX        ;n z^b    uHn~Ej+wDwDn~E21C8E M ]L Q N5};$)d<Z_'(1 3f8f9J:9_@*B FHwFV\_ixbooJqjr6,xI.yr zO;K l7|*yV|YCCwM3$&@q@Ur`@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial3z Times?5 z Courier New"qh*jfR'a:'a:24rr3QKX)?5}%NDT COMMITTEE MEETING AT NORTHWESTERNBUWFU$      Oh+'0  $ @ L Xdlt|&NDT COMMITTEE MEETING AT NORTHWESTERNofDT BU U U  Normal.dotEWFU14Microsoft Word 10.0@l7/@o @q"@'a՜.+,D՜.+,` hp  Baylor Universityr:r{ &NDT COMMITTEE MEETING AT NORTHWESTERN Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSApC,mailto:john.fritch@uni.edu  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTVWXYZ[\^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F"@Data U1Table]QWordDocument"SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q