Author Topic: Conferences 2012  (Read 3140 times)

Ermo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
Conferences 2012
« on: May 03, 2012, 06:41:31 AM »
Obviously, topic area discussion is the order of the moment. That said, I've resubmitted the 2008 conferences amendment with some changes that address objections raised at the time. I'm attaching the submitted draft; my understanding is that it could be tweaked before the 'submit to membership'  time and amended again at the CEDA summer meetings.

The primary benefit to a conference structure, in my mind, is the potential to grow the number of schools participating in policy debate by defining conferences in ways that may invite non-participants (such as a Big 10 conference, etc.). Perhaps a group of schools doing other forms of forensics would add a policy debate component and come in as a conference (I haven't discussed this with any - just an example).

Another benefit is the potential for schools with similar approaches to debate to define themselves by that criteria instead of a regional criteria. Of course, nearly all regions have enough schools that they could simply re-form their region as a conference if geographic proximity was most important to them. In fact, there might be ways of enhancing geographic proximity not accounted for by current regional lines.

The conferences amendment does not stipulate the outcome of such a process - it just creates a framework for that process to occur. Schools who don't attempt to join a conference will instead be part of an 'independent' conference.

The 2008 conference proposal raised concerns for some because it removed voting privileges (with a reinstatement procedure) for conferences who missed several business meetings. The 2012 proposal makes reinstatement automatic upon arrival. It says, instead, that conferences who skip multiple business meetings stop counting for the purposes of determining a quorum, and then start counting again once they show up. This approach should also solve the quorum problem which has impeded multiple CEDA business meetings.

Finally, changing from regions to conferences would alter the process of selecting the final round panel. The current wording is the same as 2008. Although I have opinions on this issue, I see it as distinct from the larger question.

I assume that the NDT will retain its current districts and qualification process, so there will still be regional identity. I know that it may take some time for schools to figure out what conference structures they propose, so the amendment is written envisioning passage in summer 2012, discussion and coordination during the 2012-2013 season, and actual movement to the new structure beginning in fall 2013.

Please, post or backchannel (my gmail name is ermocito) with any feedback or suggestions.