Agenda
AFA-NIET Committee Meeting
12:00 pm – 3:45 pm
Room: PDR 7
Palmer House Hilton
Chicago, IL
 
Members Present: Thompson, Chair, Pober, Vice Chair, Mayfield, Secretary/District 7 Chair, Schnoor, Tournament Director, R. Smith, District 1 Chair, Northup, District 2 Chair, Cox, District 3 Chair, Collie, District 4 Chair, Paine, District 5 Chair, Edwards, District 6 Chair, Wickelgren, District 8 Chair, Shineman, District 9 Chair, Mays, Community College Representative, Roberts, Southern Rep., Leyes, Eastern Rep., Morris, Central Rep., Gaer, Western Rep., Loden, Student Rep., White, Chair Board of Trustees
 
I. Call to Order
 Thompson called the meeting to order and asked for introductions.
 
II.  Approval of Minutes from April meeting at the NIET Roberts/m morris/s 
 Correct Dan Leyes name in list of committee members, and Jose Magana
 
III. Officer Reports
 
 A. Chair 
Thompson reminded committee of the AFA business meeting later in the afternoon and encouraged attendance. Meeting room changed to Salon 12 at 4:00-5:30
  
 B. Vice Chair
Pober reported that he has been in contact with student reps and that Loden will join the committee within the hour to represent student body. 
 
 C. Board of Trustees
White handed out financial statement from NIET 07. Thompson thanks White for hosting of the NIET 07.
 
 D. Chair Emeritus (Carver)
 Not present, no research request. No additional report
 
 E. Tournament Director
Schnoor reported that he has been busy working 08 NIET. He felt that NIET 07 went well and the money paid out for student representation was for last years reps. This year’s rep will receive check later. Site report for Akron conducted summer 07 and Schnoor recommends going to U of Akron in 2009. No other bids have been made for 2009. Classroom location will be reduced from NFA 06. April 3-6 will be the dates for 2009. Akron food service would be large enough to take care of the NIET population. No meal card would be needed. If there is a banquet there is a location large enough. Rooms for out rounds will not be a problem. Radisson will be the tournament hotel and close enough to walk to campus. Nearest airport is in Akron/Canton. Akron is in the north-eastern part of the state with Cleveland being the closest large city. 
Pober/m collie/s moved to accept the bid. Motion passed.
 
 F. Secretary (Mayfield)
 Will correct spelling, no other reports.
 
 G. Webmaster (Cronn-Mills)
Cronn-Mills emailed his report to committee members. Cronn-Mills points out that AFA archives are mostly from NDT and suggests that scanned ballots from out-rounds would be made available. Executive committee will purchase a high speed scanner for the NIET to make archiving possible. Morris asked if we would need to get the judges permission to scan and post ballots. Gaer confirms and permission would be needed; however, the same form we use for the judging contract could be used to confirm permission. Paine suggests that the same option be made available for schools to opt out of having their ballots made public. Cronn-Mills suggests a document that claims ownership of ballots. Loden points out that as a competitor she wouldn’t want public access to her ballots. The committee asks that Cronn-Mills take back to the parent organization issues of legality of making public individual ballots and determine if FERPA have stipulations for this situation. 
July 1st Cronn-Mills takes over President of AFA. Cronn-Mills asks the national committee to suggest individuals to serve in the capacity for committee membership. Committee terms are for three year appointments. Edwards encourages the NIET to take advantage of Cronn-Mills being president and become an active part of the archiving process. 
 
 IV. Tournament Host Reports
 
 A. 2008 – University of Texas-Austin 
Cox reports that everything running smoothly and that the online reservation system for Crowne Plaza is in place. Tournament hotel has plenty of nearby restaurants. Cox will talk with connections to remove room rental fees for district meetings. Early extempt tub drop off will be available Friday evening at the University Teaching Center (UTC). The same location will be used for HFO in January. Banquet is still up in the air depending on the movement of this committee. The money usually spent on banquet would still be spent on the tournament, amenities, etc. Twelve Passenger vans are available at Enterprise, Avis and Caps. Enterprise will bring the van to you. Eight passenger vans should be no problem. Should check with Enterprise about the different cost for the age of drivers. Cox reports that it is only a ten minute drive from airport to tournament hotel. Days Inn North is alternate hotel. Kinkos and restaurants are all close by. Meals will be box lunches and will be distributed out of Ballroom in Union. Express line available for Extempers. Draw will be farthest out but only a 5 min. walk. Parking is being negotiated right across the street from student union but there will be a lot of pay garages around campus. Union is located near the six-pack area. Everything is handicap accessible. Plenty of table space in draw to spread out, outlets will be available throughout. Coffee and continental breakfast will be catered during out-rounds on Monday.
 
 B. 2009 – (Schnoor, Thompson)
 Schnoor reports that a site has been accepted. The NIET 2009 will be at the Univ. of Akron.
 
 C. Future Hosts – (Schnoor, Thompson)
Schnoor reports that a call for host in 2010 will happen after NCA. Depending on the action of the committee bids might be easier to get.
 
V. Committee Reports
 
 A. AFA-NIET Student Committee 
Magana not present at meeting. Loden reports that she has been working hard to encourage communication among the student representatives. She is also working on creating an online newsletter. Loden ask what would national committee like from the student representatives. Pober suggest that getting information about what has been covered today and feedback on that information would be necessary. Morris asks Loden how the student representatives see themselves serving on this national committee. Loden sees it as dual membership in terms of representing self and representing the student body of the NIET. Schnoor encourages Loden to keep Magana in the loop and to encourage his participation on the national committee. Loden ask if there should be consistency across the dist. in terms of student representatives. The committee suggests that it doesn’t change the impact of voting within the student committee. Paine/m Collie/s move that the districts elect a single student voice in the form of a voting rep. Paine removed motion.
 
 B. Distinguished Service Committee
Pober asks Edwards and Paine to leave the room so their nominations might be discussed. Schnoor/m wickelgren/s move to accept the nomination of Edwards and Paine as the recipients of the Distinguished Service Award. Thompson points out that Edwards commitment goes back many years and her service has been excellent including her willingness to host the NIET in 2002, as well as her commitment to forensic education. Roberts also points out Edwards dedication to DSR is remarkable. Both nominees are excellent candidates. White says rarely does she make her decision until she has heard both speak on an issue. Schnoor points out that Paine has been an excellent addition to the NIET tab staff. Collie calls question. Motion passed. Thompson thanks committee for their work. Congratulations are offered to both Edwards and Paine. 
 
 C. Outstanding Coaching Committee
Pober reports that three nominees have excellent qualifications for the Outstanding New Coach Award: Benassi/Bradley, Martinelli/Florida, Warren/GMU. Schnoor/m Morris/s to accept committee’s nominations. Gaer commends Martinelli’s commitment to forensic and Leyes points out that Warren is the driving force behind the new organization of SNAFU, Smith commends Warrens commitment to forensic education. Paine points out that Benassi’s ballots have always been productive and he has strong commitment to forensic. Pober points out that all three candidates have made themselves incredibly strong in the field of forensics. Schnoor calls the question. Motion passed. Pober mentions that until the announcement is made to nominees that it should not be mentioned. Thompson reinforces the idea. 
 
Committee moved that a slight rewording to include, “additional letters of support for the candidate are welcomed.” Pober/m Gaer/s Thompson suggests that not having the additional letters are a missed opportunity for others to provide feedback. Paine points out that the additional letters might suggest that one candidate is stronger than another so he hopes that it won’t become a requirement. Collie points out that the Dist. Service Award intentionally uses a single letter to reduce the amount of paperwork the committee has to review. Schnoor suggest that the additional letters could be used to show broad impact across the regions for the candidate. White asked if the one page nomination letter might be restrictive and lifting that might make it better. Morris suggest that the more the merrier is the idea of the committee. Schnoor calls question. Motion passed. 
 
Cox ask for clarification on the ‘five year’ status. Pober suggest that is should be five years in a formal position. 
 
 D. Research Committee (Carver)
 No report 
 
 E. Awards Committee 
Pober reports that Mid-West Trophy has only increase the cost of awards two percent this year. Schnoor reports that pewter plate cost has been kept low by using surplus. All American awards are in surplus as well because the date is not place on the award. Amount of money spent on awards will be hirer because of two Distinguished Service Awards and three Outstanding New Coaches award.
 
 F. AFA-NIET All American Team Committee 
Morris reminds the District Chairs that March 10 is the deadline for submitting nominations for the All American Team. Morris also points out that a personal statement is now part of the nomination process. An official transcript is also part of the nomination process, or as official as it can be. March 10 is the date to get the nomination to Morris and her committee, NOT for District Committees to make their decision. Thompson reminds us that there could be two students nominated from the same school.
 
 G. Manchester Scholar Series (Pober)
Pober reports that only one proposal and requested that it be resubmitted with a publishable document prescribed in the submission. Mayes asked what the output would be if not a publishable document. Roberts reports that it was a proposed DVD that would be handed out to all participating teams at the NIET. Cox points out that it was his proposal and it was his desire to provide an alternative ‘publishing’ opportunity. The committee commends the proposal but wishes for a more traditional publishing approach.
 
H. Technology Committee – (Roebuck)
 No report.
 
VI. Old Business
 
 A. At-Large Qualification Formula Committee
Morris reports there are other things being talked about today that might impact more than this committee could suggest. Because issues are different in each district it is difficult for this committee to make suggestions. Schnoor reviewed the past two year’s numbers to show an overall increase from 2005 to 2007. Edwards suggest that the student representatives report back to their regions that the committee looked at the issue but made the decision not to make any formal recommendations. Morris asks that the district chairs also talk to the student representatives from their district. 
 
 B. Arrangement of Patterns of Events for NIET
Schnoor, on a proposal from the students, suggest that moving duo to a flight as the only interpretation event: 

	Group A				Group B					Group C
	IMP	INF	PRO	rms	DUO	EXT.	PERS	POI	rms	ADS	CA	DI	POE	rms
NIET 2005	24	25	26	75	20	21	23	26	90	24	22	25	26	97
NIET 2006	23	22	25	70	20	20	21	22	83	21	20	23	23	87
NIET 2007	24	23	26	73	18	20	22	23	83	24	21	21	22	88
POSSIBLE CHANGES BY MOVING AN INTERP EVENT:
	Group A				Group B					Group C
	IMP	INF	DUO		PRO	EXT.	PERS	POI		ADS	CA	DI	POE
1.Moving Duo & Prose	24	23	20	67	26	20	22	23	91	24	21	21	22	88
	Group A				Group B					Group C
	IMP	INF	PRO	POI	rms	EXT.	PERS DUO		rms	ADS	CA	DI	POE
2. Moving POI & DUO	24	23	26	23	96	20	22	20	62	24	21	21	22	88
	Group A				Group B					Group C
	IMP	INF	PRO	DI		EXT.	PERS	DUO		ADS	CA	POI	POE
3. Moving POI & DI	24	23	26	21	94	20	22	20	62	24	21	23	22	90
As one can see, whichever interp event is moved, it will affect the rooms required for a time period and there is
no way of knowing how this may impact the events a student may choose to enter.

 
Thompson asks for rationale for proposal to move duo. Gaer reports that the “student argument” is that a competitor can do 6 PA events but only 5 interp events. Smith pointed out that 6 PA are still 4 prepared speech and 2 limited prep events NOT 6 PA events. Loden reports that the student body really wants to be able to do 6 interp events, but also points out that it is possible to do six events and sees the advantage of ‘crossing over’ in terms of types of events. White points out that while LP and PA are different there is quite a bit of cross over. Perhaps the Individual Sweeps should include the stipulation that ‘crossing genres’ be part of the award. Shinemen points out that the patterns force people to cross genre. Morris points out that any decision we make forces student to choice in selection of events. Cox points out that 4 yrs ago we made a decision to decrease the size of the tournament, and would be fundamentally opposed to a proposal that might increase. Pober suggests that we could change the tabbing of individual sweeps so that only the best 4 or 5 events count. Paine suggests that event size is hard to predict because some won’t be doing and event for example Impromptu or Informative in favor of doing duo. Morris wonders about the impact on regular season tournament size as well. No formal proposal has been presented at this point. Thompson request that at the NIET in 2008 a formal proposal be presented and encourages that the committee look at all options including issues of individual sweepstakes. Thompson encourages that Dist. chairs be prepared to vote on the issue at NIET 2008. 
 
Cox/m Mays/s that the committee consider a vote changing the individual sweeps formula to a best of four events in prelim/outrounds. Thompson asks Cox also include a justification for the motion. Smith suggests that we also look at including a minimum of two genres to be considered individual events. Wickelgren encourages the committee to explore the issue of moving duo before any other motion is forwarded. Cox wishes to withdraw his motion and wished the committee to look at the motion as a proposal from the committee.
 
Edwards asks for a historical overview of Individual sweepstakes. Schnoor reports that it started with 3 events, moved to 4. In the beginning only 40/50 student were doing individual Sweeps now it is over 110/120 individuals doing individual sweeps. Northup suggest that instead of changing Individual Sweeps, we add an additional award to “trithon” type sweeps. Wickelgren points out the difference between a pentathlon award as opposed to individual sweeps. Schnoor feels that the committee has enough information from the national committee to come back with proposals. 
 Committee consist of: Schnoor, Chair, Wickelgren, Pober, Leyes, Collie. 
 
 C. Rewording of Manchester Scholars Series Award
Pober points out a number of changes needed: under honorarium add (after contract has been signed) under accountability add (should the scholar(s) fail to fulfill these requirements within a year’s time, the honorarium must be returned). Pober points out that this is a non-binding addition. 
 Cox/m collie/s move to accept language. Motion passed.
 
 D. Re-Districting Ad Hoc Committee
Committee isn’t suggesting any changes at this points, only reporting information to think about. This committee thanks Shineman and his committee for the work on this agenda item.
 
 E. NIET/NDT School Award 
 Schnoor is working with Cronn-Mills to obtain information to post.
 
 F. Individual Events Developmental Conference 
Schnoor reports that the IE Developmental Conference will be July 31, Aug. 2 and will be held in Peoria, IL. The conference hotel will be the Pierre Marquette Hotel: $99 for single or double includes breakfast buffet, the conference will be on the Bradley University campus. Reports from the conference will be made available after the conference.
 
Vll. New Business
 
 A. Proposal to eliminate the script book from Dramatic Interpretation Event
Pober admits his age at repeating his motion from past years. For this proposal the definition of character separates DI from other events. Pober/m Shineman/s
 

Proposal: Eliminate the binder/manuscript in Dramatic Interpretation for a 2-year period after which the NIET Committee would revisit the issue and decide whether to extend the period or re-establish the binder/manuscript requirement.

Rationale:

1) The NIET Committee voted to focus the event description for Dramatic Interpretation on “the development of character” with the following approved wording:

Drama Interpretation: A cutting that represents one or more characters from a play or plays of literary merit. A primary focus of this event should be on the development of characterization. This material may be drawn from stage, screen or radio. Use of manuscript is required; Maximum time limit is 10 minutes including introduction.

2) Given this focus, we should consider definitions of “development of character” as articulated by Oral Interpretation scholars both outside of forensics and within our discipline. Charlotte Lee and Timothy Gura in their 8^th edition of Oral interpretation define character as incorporating “bodily action.” They write, “Bodily action includes movements of the head, arms, shoulders, hands, torso, and legs, and changes in posture, facial expressions, and muscle tone of the entire body. Modern interpreters know that the test of bodily action is the ability to communicate the literature at hand. Bodily action is effective only when it suits the material and thus helps elicit the desired response.” They conclude on the following page (117) that “a responsive body is such an important factor in the total process of communication…” Within our discipline, Hindman, Shackelford, and Schlottach wrote in their 1991 Working Forensics: A Competitor’s Guide, “The more details that you add and the more that you rehearse, the easier the characters are to create and control.” They continue in their discussion of Dramatic Interpretation on p. 193,”The character…is shown through focus as well as voice and body.” They conclude with an analysis of “character physicality” that addresses gestures and full upper body use.

3) The forensics community seems very concerned about the convention of “slicks” and the shortage thereof. As many have noted on the IE-L and elsewhere, perhaps it is time to reconsider the convention. This small step would give the community the opportunity to examine that convention.

4) The reason for not making the binder optional in the proposal reverts to a previous discussion about this issue: students could be adjudicated based on the judge’s paradigm and those not following suit might be penalized for one choice or the other. Additionally, given the recent discussion of “standards,” the elimination of the binder for this trial period would put everyone on the same level playing field as it would be the “standard” for DI.

 
 
White asks why the present of the binder in precludes someone from developing character. Pobers suggests it is the covering of the full body and the use of two hands in the developing of characters. Wickelgren asks about the difference between monologues versus multiple characters. Pober suggests that in multiple characters it is even more important for full body development. Collie suggests that eliminating the book would change the event from interpretation to acting and would need to change the title of the event, and there is a difference between oral interpretation and performance studies. Schnoor points out that 15/20 years ago he submitted the same type of proposal and it was the students who did not want the proposal passed. Logan suggests that the student opinion is split 50/50 for support. Cox reports that District 3 wants to make sure it was clear that is was not optional and that the two year time period be in place. Leyes, from a Community College perspective voices concern that novices will be reluctant to compete in DI and the forced memory might suggest the ‘fabrication’ of script. Morris points to the NFA experimental event of Shakespeare and it made for an awesome experience. Northup wants to encourage the committee to continue to fight off ‘performance’ and continue with ‘interpretation.’ Paine reports that while District 5 opposes the motion he is in favor. 
 
Schnoor ask that we table the discussion until April and a formal vote be made then.
 
 B. Proposal to eliminate the banquet meal for the NIET (Schnoor)
Schnoor reports that this has been an agenda item before so the idea isn’t a new one. The banquet presents the biggest difficulty in finding host schools. Cost of banquet is the second biggest problem. Schnoor/m Gaer/s 
 
Proposal to Annul the AFA-NIET Banquet
Presented by District IV (Larry Schnoor and Kelly Jo Wright)
 
Spanish writer Jose Bergamin has said, “Tradition simply means we need 
to end what began well and continue what is worth continuing.” While 
the AFA-NIET Banquet began as a gathering to celebrate the success of 
national competitors, in recent years the banquet has become more of a 
burden than a celebration of success. We believe this is a tradition 
that needs to be eliminated because of both financial and scheduling 
issues, as well as for the health of forensics in general.
 
Date proposal should take effect: April 2009
 
Reasons for abolishing the banquet:
1. Financial
 a. Rising cost of banquet
 i. The cost of the banquet has risen to an average of $30 a person
 b. Financial burden on teams
 i. Many programs have budgets that are being cut – the financial burden of being required to attend the banquet may make attending the AFA-NIET prohibitive
 ii.  The cost of the banquet per person is the equivalent of what 
 many students receive for 4 or 5 meals. In an era where budgets are 
 being cut from programs, the banquet is an unnecessary extravagance
2. Scheduling
 a. Increased difficulty imposed on tournament director and host 
 school to find a large enough venue
 i. There are very few venues in most cities that can provide 
 affordable space for a banquet of this size.
 b. Impossibility of determining a menu that meets all food 
 preferences and restrictions
 i. Finding one menu that is appropriate for those with food 
 allergies, religious restrictions on food or specific dietary needs is 
 impossible.
 ii. Because of the size of the banquet, the quality (taste) of food 
 is often lacking. Money spent on a banquet meal is not well spent if 
 the food is not appetizing. 
 c. Impossibility of teams being able to sit together.
 i. This causes frustration to students, coaches, the tournament 
 director, and even wait staff.
 d. The time and energy spent by tournament director and host 
 school on the banquet would be better spent on tournament preparation. 
 i. Many hours are spent by both the tournament director and host 
 school on finding an appropriate venue making arrangements with the 
 venue, and choosing a menu. The stress on both tournament director and 
 host school would be greatly reduced without this funnel of time and 
 energy
3. Health of Forensics
 a. Purpose of the AFA-NIET is forensics competition, not 
 gastronomic challenges.
 i. While the banquet is a tradition, it should not be held on to 
 solely for that reason. When a tradition negatively affects the main 
 purpose, it is time for the tradition to change.
 b. The time taken up by the banquet interferes with students (and 
 coaches/judges!) getting the opportunity to rest and relax before out-
 rounds the following day.
 i. We have become increasingly aware the importance of the health 
 of students and coaches/judges.
 ii. Subjecting exhausted students and coaches/judges to a 3 hour 
 banquet can have a negative impact on student and judge performance the 
 next day.
 c. Teams who like the formal atmosphere and have the budget to 
 fund a formal meal still have the option to do so – they would just 
 have to make their own arrangements.
 
What abolishing the banquet will immediately affect:
1. Awards announcements
 a. Introduction of national committee, district chairs and student 
 reps
 b. Announcement of All American Team
 c. Announcement of Distinguished Service Award
2. Announcement of semifinalists
 a. From 1978 until 1983, the announcement of those advancing to 
 out rounds was presented on Sunday evening at coaches and student 
 parties.
 b. In 1984, the announcement of semifinalists was made at the 
 banquet
3. Announcement of next day judges
 a. Judges are no longer announced at the banquet because of the 
 number of judges who did not show up Monday morning.
 
Suggestions for including announcements in the existing schedule:
1. Announce the Distinguished Service Award at the opening 
 assembly.
 a. This would give the recipient the opportunity to receive 
 congratulations throughout the weekend.
2. Announce the national committee, district chairs and student 
 reps at the beginning of the awards ceremony
3. Announce the All-American Team at the beginning of the awards 
 ceremony
 a. These announcements only take approximately 15 minutes, and 
 would not have a significant affect on the length of the awards ceremony
 b. Recognizing the All-American Team at the awards ceremony would 
 impress upon the recipients (and audience) the significance of the 
 award.
 c. It is NOT recommended that the All-American Team be announced 
 at the opening ceremony, due to a real or perceived affect on the 
 student’s competitive performance.
4. Eliminate announcements of semifinalists and judges the night 
 before
 a. There is no logical reason why this is needed
 b. Precedent has been set by other national tournaments which do 
NOT announce any out round competitors the night before the out rounds.
 
Collie points out that she has heard too often that people have not wanted to put in a bid because of the cost of the banquet. Thompson asks for feedback from each district: District 1 likes the idea of knowing ‘breaks’ but is in support of eliminating the banquet, District 2 is happy to see banquet go away, but would like all breaks announced on Sunday night, District 3 in favor of getting rid of banquet and would allow for more prestige for distinguished service award, Dist 4, Dist 5 is in favor of dropping the banquet. District 6 is in favor of dropping the banquet, Dist 7 is in favor of eliminating the banquet, District 8 is in favor of the banquet going away, District 9 is in favor of eliminating the banquet.
Motion passed, NIET 2008 at Texas, Austin will have no banquet.
 
 Schnoor reports that he will follow the wishes of the committee about announcement of ‘out-rounds.’ Cox voices concern of hosting the first set of out-rounds for Monday to assure all competitors and judges are present. The committee will leave it up to the tournament director to make the decision of when to announce. In terms of announcement of awards, the Distinguished Service award would be made at the opening assembly. All-American will be announced at the awards assembly, and the Outstanding New Coach award will be made at opening assembly.
 
Pober/m Morris/s moved to adjourned.
Meeting adjourned at 3:50.