[pending final approval by the NIET Committee in November 2005]

American Forensic Association National Individual Events Tournament Committee
Meeting at the National Individual Events Tournament
Holiday Inn Hotel, Room #5
Manhattan, Kansas
April 1, 2005

Minutes

Members Present: Cynthia Carver, NIET Chair; Bruce Manchester, NIET Vice-Chair and Eastern Rep.; Guy Yates, Chair Emeritus; Larry Schnoor, NIET Director; Peter Pober, NIET Secretary; Matt Taylor, District I Chair; Sam Mathies, District II Chair; David Worth, District III Chair; Susan Collie, District IV Chair; Ric Roe, District V Chair; Dan Smith (incoming District V Chair); Frank Thompson, District VI Chair and Bd. Of Trustees; Lee Mayfield, District VII Chair; Stephanie Guthrie (rep. Kevin Sheldon, District VIII Chair); Kelly McDonald, District IX Chair; Karen Morris, Midwest Rep.; Kellie Roberts, Southern Rep. and Bd. Of Trustees Member; Trischa Goodnow, Western Rep.; Sarah Bourassa, Student Co-Chair; Nick Butler, Student Co-Chair; Craig Brown and Bobby Imbody, Tournament Hosts; Tony Mata and Andrew Kudla, incoming Student Co-Chairs

I. Call to Order
Carver called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. and asked for introductions. New Chairs were announced for District IX (Kirt Shineman, Glendale C.C.) and District V (Dan Smith, Bradley University). M/Manchester, S/Collie to accept agenda. Agenda accepted.

II. Approval of Fall 2004 Minutes
Manchester offered adjustments to the minutes:
1.  Under V.E. Awards Committee: should it read "...costs by 6% to ..."?
     2.  Under V.F. All-American Team Committee: should it read "Email to Morris at morriskr@uwec.edu"?
     3.  Under V.G. Dr. Bruce Manchester Scholar Series: should read "...to Goodnow, Roberts, and Morris..."
M/Manchester, S/Schnoor to accept adjusted minutes. Minutes accepted.

III. Tournament Host Reports
A. 2005 Host (Brown and Imbody)
Brown asked people to thank Erica Imbody for directing the conference planning class that has put forth great effort for the tournament. He announced the class members will be wearing t-shirts with a blue campus map on the back on Sat. and orange on Sun. and Mon. Park in the union lots and you do not have to feed the meters on Sat. or Sun. The only places you can’t park are the handicapped and 24-hour spaces. Monday parking permits will be available at registration tonight; if you park in the lower union lot, no need to feed the meter, but other meters you have to feed. Monday night a local bar/restaurant in Aggieville will be open with music; all people are welcome to attend. Sat. morning announcements will be in the courtyard area between the Union and Seton Hall and the Manchester presentation will be in Seton 063. Extemp Prep is in Cardwell 101 (open Fri. night 6-9 p.m. for those who would like to drop off files) and in the Union for Monday. T-shirts are available for sale as are water bottles. Out-rounds will be in the Union and the Alumni Center on Monday. Monday at 10:30 a.m. the tornado sirens will go off but don’t freak out. Postings will be inside the Union Courtyard. Ballot drop-off will be on the 2nd floor of the Union.
B. 2006 Host (Roberts)
The University of Florida will be using the Paramount Resort Hotel (was Sheraton in 1996) with a $79 rate 1-4 people. They are prepared for district gatherings as well. Fly into Gainesville (very small), Jacksonville (1.5 hours), Orlando and Tampa (2 hours away). No 15-passenger vans are available in Gainesville. They will be using the Union again with wonderful refurbishing and expansions. The assembly will be outside at the Amphitheater with postings outside (like in 1996). They will use the union for tab-rooms and extemp prep and the banquet. Plenty of fast food places are in the union. All out-rounds will be in the union on Monday. Awards will probably be in the Grand Ballroom. Matherly Hall is a 10-minute walk and the farthest building (working on shuttle service for judges). They will use a declining balance card for meals. They will host a tournament in Jan. or Feb. and will announce soon. Meal plan will be $45 rather than $50.

IV. Bids for Future Tournament Sites
A. 2007
Minnesota State University, Mankato (White)
Prof. Leah White offered the bid officially to host the 2007 NIET. There is plenty of hotel space with 3 possible focus hotels. Opening assembly and awards will be in the Union Ballroom. Competition rooms are no problem Sat. and Sun., but Monday is a slight concern. There are 13 rooms in the Union, but only 6 are great for out-rounds, so she will search for the additional 10 needed. Tab-rooms will be in the Union as will extemp prep. Judges will be no problem (12 grad assistants who are required to judge) with many high school coaches who could judge and numerous alums. A conference planning class will be taught by White that semester for workers/helpers. They will use a debit card for meals with several fast food options. At this point, it is not possible to have a banquet except for in the athletic spaces (but she would not know that until Fall 2006), but could have a reception in the 2-floor union space as a possibility (only $5 for a dessert option or perhaps hors d’oeuvres). Copying will not be a problem. Postings will be easier with paper postings using open windows. Powerpoint is tougher as it would take the ballroom area and prohibit competition in the ballroom. Yates was concerned with partitioning the ballroom and sound bleeding, but White indicated the room spaces would be large enough to prevent most of that. It is a 6-minute walk to farthest building. The Mall of America is 1.5 hours away. Walkways exist between all the buildings. Probably the Best Western or Holiday Inn will be the tournament hotel. Schnoor indicated that Bobby Imbody contacted Dell and received 2 free computers to keep for this tournament. Carver spoke of a large alumni base from numerous Minnesota programs. M/Manchester, S/Thompson to accept the bid. Smith asked if the Sunday night meal could be part of the debit card given the possibility of a reception instead and Carver asked that the minutes reflect that. Bid accepted for the 30th NIET at Minnesota State University, Mankato.

B. 2008
Schnoor announced that 2 schools are considering bids for 2008.

V. Election of Officers
A. NIET Committee Chair
Kellie Roberts nominated Frank Thompson, seconded by Manchester. M/Manchester, S/Roe to elect by acclamation. Thompson is elected. Collie asked that the minutes reflect appreciation for all the work Carver has done.
B. Tournament Director
M/Manchester, S/ Roe to nominate Schnoor. Schnoor is elected.
C. NIET Committee Secretary
M/Schnoor, S/Collie to nominate Pober. Pober is elected.

VI. Appointments
A. Regional Representatives-Southern and Eastern
Carver indicated Manchester’s willingness to be reappointed. Roberts also feels honored to be reappointed.
B. Board of Trustees
Yates does not wish to be reappointed so Carver will appoint Dave Gaer. Carver also thanked Yates for 25 years of service to the NIET.

VII. Reports
A. NIET Committee Chair (Carver)
Carver indicated that she had several requests for waivers of the 2.0 GPA, but did not approve them. She announced that the head table only has 12 spaces and wants the district chairs to be there. Vice-Chair, Tournament Director, and Chair Emeritus were also asked to be at the head table.
B. Board of Trustees Chair (Yates)
The financial statements submitted in the fall stand. He announced no protests this year and attributed that to the final round tapings. There is one research project by Merci Decker addressing romantic relationships within a team.
C. NIET Vice-chair (Manchester)
The student co-chairs will join us this afternoon noted Manchester.
D. NIET Secretary (Pober)
The minutes stand as his report.
E. Tournament Director (Schnoor)
96 schools are in attendance (last year 112) with 155 less entries than at Long Beach. 76 rooms are used in Pattern A, 90 rooms in B, and 98 rooms in C. There are 201 school judges and 53 hireds (no judge judging more than 7 rounds). 81 judges had school/student restrictions. 11 schools comprise 814 of the entries (over half the total) with the remaining 735 other entries among 85 schools. Registration assignments this evening were announced for 7-9 p.m. at the Holiday Inn. Registration packets will contain code sheets, TV waivers, and out-round judge sheets (turn in by 6 p.m. Sat. to be considered). There were a number of late adds after published schematic and those schools affected will have a note in their registration packet, but ballot labels will be corrected. He will eventually propose a fee for schools that send in registrations with a mistake and do not tell Schnoor. He commended Craig, Bobby, and Erica for their work as hosts.
F. NIET Webmaster (Cronn-Mills)
Carver indicated that Cronn-Mills has done work on the website with links to the New Coach Award, tie-breaking procedures, and the 66-cap. He wants results still from certain years. While he posts jobs to the website, it is time-intensive and he wants to know whether people are using it. Manchester indicated the information is available in a variety of other venues and if Cronn-Mills finds it time-intensive, he shouldn’t have to do it. Carver spoke of Butler’s work with the student website but clarified that only those approved motions should be posted and not the entire minutes. She also asked whether the student site should be at the NIET site and not a separate site by the students. Cronn-Mills would be happy to post everything at the NIET site. Carver asked for feedback before the November meeting. McDonald asked whether moving the site would create a problem given that the student reps seem to be doing a good job. Taylor expressed concern of oversight that might appear controlling. Schnoor focused on the difference between a discussion-based listserv and one that focuses on posting motions. Carver asked that the student reps work with Thompson for November.

VIII. Standing Committee Reports
A. Distinguished Service Award (Manchester)
He wants nominations by Oct. 1 and reminded the committee that Goodnow will be honored as the 2005 recipient.
B. Outstanding New Forensics Coaching Award (Manchester)
Carver indicated that the deadline moves to the Oct. 1 deadline for this fall. Robert F. Imbody, III will be honored this banquet. Manchester encouraged resubmission, but will not carry over any nominations. He asked permission to slightly add to one of the criteria: “individual events and/or debate” M/Manchester, S/Worth to add this phrase. Pober asked if this would then allow a coach who only coaches debate to receive the award and Manchester indicated that while that is possible, that would probably not happen with this committee to represent the NIET.
C. Awards Committee (Pober, Schnoor)
Schnoor indicated that the letter for Midwest Trophy is in the packet. We will need new plates for next year. Schnoor is working to get a corporation to underwrite at least some of the cost. Pober indicated that the Individual Sweepstakes Traveling Trophy has been refurbished at a cost of $250 with the new plate costing $260. The eagle was chosen for the New Coach Award.
D. Dr. Bruce B. Manchester NIET Scholar Series (Manchester)
“Forensics as a Correlate of Graduate School Success” was the proposal by Dr. Todd T. Holm who will be the next scholar. The first scholar will present tomorrow morning at the opening meeting. The deadline for submission is November 1. A copy will be submitted to Carver for publishing.
E. All-American Awards (Morris)
9 automatics will be awarded and between 9 and 21 additional recipients are possible. The committee will meet after this meeting.

F. Research (Yates)
Previously discussed.
G. Student Committee (Butler, Bourassa)
They have added an elected secretary.

IX. Old Business
A. Charter Changes
Carver indicated that the motions approved by the NIET have not been sent out to the members yet, but Carver is assured they will be sent for a vote in April.
B. Event Descriptions (Goodnow)
Motion: Approve the following changes in event descriptions.

A EVENTS ___________________________________________________________________________________
Impromptu Speaking: An impromptu speech, serious in nature, with topic selections varied by round and by section. Topics will be [Del: of a proverb nature][Add: derived from quotations]. Speakers will have a total of 7 minutes for both preparation and speaking. Timing commences with the acceptance of the topics sheet. Limited notes are

Informative Speaking: An original, factual speech by the student on a realistic subject to fulfill the general aim to inform the audience. Audio-visual aids may or may not be used to supplement and reinforce the message. Multiple sources should be used and cited in the development of the speech. Minimal notes are permitted. Maximum time is 10 minutes [Del :including introduction].

Prose Interpretation: A selection or selections of prose material of literary merit, which may be drawn from more than one source. [Add: The focus of this event is on the development of the narrative/story.] Play cuttings and poetry are prohibited. Use of manuscript is required. Maximum time is 10 minutes including introduction.

B EVENTS

Dramatic Duo: A cutting from a play or plays, humorous or serious, involving the portrayal of two or more characters presented by two individuals. This material may be drawn from stage, screen or radio. This is not an acting event; thus, no costumes, props, lighting, etc., are to be used. Presentation is from the manuscript and the focus should be off-stage and not to each other. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes including introduction.

Extemporaneous Speaking: Contestants will be given three topics in the general area of current events, choose one, and have 30 minutes to prepare a speech that is the original work of the student. Maximum time limit for the speech is 7 minutes. Limited notes are permitted. Students will speak in listed order. Posting of topics will be staggered.

Persuasive Speaking: An original speech by the student designed to inspire, reinforce or change the beliefs, attitudes, values or actions of the audience. Audio-visual aids may or may not be used to supplement and reinforce the message. Multiple sources should be
used and cited in the development of the speech. Minimal notes are permitted. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes.

Program Oral Interpretation: A program of thematically-linked selections of literary merit, chosen from two or three recognized genres of competitive interpretation (prose/poetry/drama). [Add: The focus of this event is on the development of the theme through the use of story, language, and/or character.] A substantial portion of the total time must be devoted to each of the genres used in the program. Different genre means the material must appear in separate pieces of literature (e.g., A poem included in a short story that appears only in that short story does not constitute a poetry genre). Only one selection may be original. Use of manuscript is required. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes including original introduction [Del: and/or transitions].

C EVENTS ___________________________________________________________________________________
After-Dinner Speaking: An original, humorous speech by the student, designed to exhibit sound speech composition, thematic coherence, direct communicative public speaking skills, and good taste. The speech should not resemble a night club act, an impersonation, or comic dialogue. Audio-visual aids may or may not be used to supplement and reinforce the message. Minimal notes are permitted. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes.

Communication Analysis: An original speech by the student designed to offer an explanation and/or evaluation of a communication event such as a speech, speaker, movement, poem, poster, film, campaign, etc., through the use of rhetorical principles. Audio-visual aids may or may not be used to supplement and reinforce the message. Manuscripts are permitted. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes.

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

Poetry Interpretation: A selection or selections of poetry of literary merit, which may be drawn from more than one source. [Add: The focus of this event is on the development of language.] Play cuttings and prose works are prohibited. Use of manuscript is required. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes including introduction.

ALL MATERIALS USED IN COMPETITION SHALL NOT HAVE BEEN USED BY THE STUDENT IN INTERSCHOLASTIC COMPETITION PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1, 2____.


AFA-NIET ETHICAL USE OF LITERATURE POLICY:
1. Contestants may not rewrite a prose, a poem, or a dramatic text so the work differs from the original text.
2. Contestants may not add or reassign scenes or lines to the performed cutting. Although an occasional line might be added, especially if a character has been deleted. This practice should be discouraged.
3. Contestants may not rewrite the ending of a work.
4. Contestants may not rewrite lines to change the gender or person of a character.
5. Contestants may not perform a text in a genre for which it has not been written.
6. Protests should be filed according to AFA-NIET Charter Bylaws Section X

Goodnow offered event descriptions for consideration and noted “less is more.” She also wondered where these rules would then be posted/published. Bourassa said students are concerned with the phrase “serious in nature.” A friendly amendment was offered to remove “serious in nature” and add “substantive.” The friendly amendment is accepted. Taylor asked whether political cartoons and other alternatives fall into the intent of Impromptu and Goodnow indicated that indeed they do. For informative, delete “including introduction.” Motion passed. For Prose, Butler indicated that the students are concerned about the nature of “story.” Goodnow indicated she understood the concern, but then asked how does one determine what is poetry in a self-written text. Bourassa indicated that students were then concerned over character-driven prose being compromised. Morris said the “telling the story” just clarifies the event. Manchester indicated that changing the wording to “a primary” before “focus” instead of the word “the” opens up the definition a bit. Pober asked about how to encourage then students using 2nd and 3rd person literature. Goodnow also asked to change “is” to “should be” before “on the development…” The revised “add” for Prose reads, “A Primary focus of this event should be on the development of narrative/story.” Motion passed. Pober noted on Duo that prosaic literature staged for production is allowable. The POI description is altered to reflect adjustments made for Prose, Poetry, and Drama, so that the “add” reads, “A primary focus of this event should be on the development of the theme through the use of narrative/story, language, and/or characterization.” “Original” is also deleted before “introduction” in the description. Motion passed. Schnoor asked about “and good taste” and how does that impact the event and why is it not anywhere else. M/Butler, S/McDonald to strike “and good taste” in the definition of After-Dinner Speaking. Collie asked the phrase “and good taste” stay in. Butler indicated that “good taste” to one person is different to another. Mathies agreed for the need to keep the phrase in the definition. Manchester noted that certain types of humor are not appropriate for this event. Smith indicated that students are finding ways of dealing with objectionable humor and addressing that. McDonald is concerned about facile commentary that deliberately attempts to address the flouting of “norms.” Goodnow asked us to look at this from a pedagogical standpoint that focuses on the audience. Taylor spoke in favor of getting rid of the phrase claiming he does not need it written to know what is inappropriate, noting that using the rules to give judges an opportunity to justify their bent is problematic. Worth agrees and notes that student adaptations to others in the round border on harassment. M/Manchester, S/Butler to table the motion to delete “and good taste” to allow for discussions in the districts. Motion is tabled. Smith asked why CA allows a manuscript rather than notes. Manchester noted that historically it was used to allow students to work out the analysis in CA and to encourage them to do the event. For DI, the “add” should read, “A primary focus of this event should be on the development of characterization.” Mayfield indicated that “of literary merit” seems just as much a concern as “and good taste.” Goodnow asked if literary merit came about with “non-published” material and Schnoor indicated they were not discussed together. Morris asked that the discussion of literary merit be coupled with good taste. Carver asked that district chairs discuss both and bring back responses. Motion to table literary merit discussion passed. As for Poetry, Goodnow asked for help. Roe asked for “imagery” to be added. Schnoor indicated that “and uses” be considered to be added after “development.” Manchester indicated he likes the original without the added “and uses.” Goodnow put forward the motion as amended without “and uses” such that the “add” reads, “A primary focus of this event should be on the development of language.” Motion passed. Pober indicated that “of literary merit” be added to Duo if it is kept or removed from all interp events if struck. M/Manchester, S/Pober to add “of literary merit” to the Duo definition until and unless the committee votes to remove the phrase from all literature events. M/Taylor, S/Manchester to table that motion until the fall. Motion to table passed. Collie, Goodnow, Kudla, and Taylor were asked to serve on the Committee to Review the Ethical Use of Literature Policy.
C. Student Eligibility (Carver, McDonald)
Motion: Students earning qualification legs for the NIET must be full or part-time undergraduate students enrolled for a minimum of six semester credit hours or the equivalent per term at the institution that they represent.

Students must be pursuing a program of study or an associate or baccalaureate degree at the institution that they are representing at the NIET.

A part-time student at an institution may not represent that institution at the NIET if they are also pursuing an associate or baccalaureate degree at another institution.

A student that has completed the requirements for an associate degree at an institution is no longer eligible to compete for that institution. A person is considered as possessing an associate degree upon his/her completion of requirements toward that degree and having been approved for graduation by his/her respective school.

An appeal for a waiver of these provisions may be made using the same procedures as outlined in the by-laws for students who have received bachelor degrees.
M/McDonald, S/Collie to take the motion off the table. Motion taken off the table. Carver is concerned that we do not have a shared understanding of the eligibility policy nor perhaps even a sufficient policy. Manchester asked that paragraphs 2 and 3 seem almost in contradiction, so he asked that they be sub-points under the first paragraph. McDonald accepted this friendly change. Roe asked whether “is no longer eligible to compete” applies to the NIET only if they have not walked yet, but Schnoor indicated that this only applies to associates degrees. Carver asked that paragraph one be voted on first. Goodnow asked if a community college student transfers to a 4-year school with no program are they not eligible and the answer is yes. Taylor asked about the possibility of a student who enrolls online with another institution since they were allowed to participate at NPDA, and the committee concluded they could particpate at the NIET as well. Taylor indicated the community colleges in Southern California are strongly opposed to the motion. Manchester reminded us that we only set guidelines for the NIET. Schnoor agreed and added only those tournaments that say they are using AFA rules are then impacted. Schnoor indicated that he had to drop a student on two days ago as he was not enrolled in the school he was representing. Smith asked what “part-time” means and do students then only have to enroll in 1 hour? The motion would reflect the 6-hour requirement. Goodnow indicated that students could be part-time students at both institutions and therefore not be allowed to compete. And, yes, that does need to be clarified in the motion. Taylor indicated that “transient” students are considered seeking a degree. Worth asked that district input be requested (as per District III’s request) and expressed concern about economic issues and demographic concerns. Mathies reminded the committee that there is an appeal process to this motion. Manchester asked the minutes reflect that the intent of the motion is not to prohibit a student who is part-time in both places to compete in the NIET. Carver asked if wording could be considered during the break. Smith asked that the 2.0 GPA requirement be placed here. Carver said we used to, but don’t now. Smith expressed concern over the fact that no check then exists nor enforcement, but Schnoor said he hoped the directors would uphold ethics. Guthrie indicated that at NYU, students need a 2.5 GPA to be a student, so there are many variables. Goodnow indicated her students have to sign a waiver to let her look at their grades. Morris asked that the eligibility reflect the 2.0 even without enforcement possibility. Roe asked whether “student in good standing” might be considered. Carver indicated that the 2.0 GPA could be put on the verification form and other places, but the question then seems to be about enforcement. Roberts asked that the phrase “or transient” be added to the 2nd paragraph to read “part-time or transient student” M/Roberts, S/Goodnow to amend the motion. Manchester indicated that he had not heard the term before and indicated we not consider it. Amendment is defeated. Carver asked that we break and when we reconvene to consider the actual wording of the motion still under discussion. Smith asked that “and must meet the minimum GPA standard of 2.0” be amended to the motion and Carver indicated that a motion would not be necessary, so he removed the motion. Manchester called the question. Question is called. Motion passes. Remember to add the 2.0 GPA into the statement for the paperwork.

X. New Business
A. Undergraduate as Judges (Thompson, Carver)
Motion: An undergraduate who is ineligible to compete at the AFA-NIET District or National Tournaments because they have judged in the open division of a forensic tournament (a division which qualifies for AFA-NIET at-large legs) may appeal their eligibility by making an appeal to the NIET Chair. The NIET Chair and the District Chair for the student will rule on the appeal within two weeks of receiving the appeal.
Carver explained that extenuating circumstances exist. Thompson hoped that an appeal process would be allowed for those unusual circumstances that might arise. Morris asked if this is passed, would the presumption be that students judging other students could be utilized? She expressed concern over that possibility. Smith echoed Morris’ concern and noted that making the decision to be “done” with eligibility should be an important decision and we should not offer a way out of that decision. Manchester indicated that the motion does not include the “only in exceptional circumstances” but only the rationale does, so he encouraged moving it up to the motion. So, “if exceptional circumstances exist” would be accepted by Carver as a friendly amendment after “may appeal their eligibility” in the motion. Manchester called the question, S/McDonald. Question is called. Motion passes but only with 50% approval and then needs a 2nd 50% vote in the fall in order to actually pass.
B. AFA-NIET Committee Minutes (Butler, Carver)
Motion: The AFA-NIET shall publish the minutes of all AFA-NIET Committee meetings on the official AFA-NIET website after they have been verified and approved by the AFA-NIET Committee through an email vote.
Butler indicated without this, it is very difficult for students to respond to issues. M/Butler, S/Manchester. Pober asked if the email vote would count as percentage of total or only those who voted and Carver said the email would indicate that failure to respond indicates approval. Schnoor asked whether it would stifle some people from responding if they feared retribution with their name posted. Bourassa indicated that the students would also post the minutes that would show how districts voted and responded rather than individuals. Butler indicated that the intent is not to show names, but to show who proposed issues/motions only. Mayfield indicated that the added work for the secretary is of concern, so the committee should either post the minutes in their entirety or not at all. Taylor said people should be held accountable for their statements. Smith indicated that district votes are not done now, so that would create extra work as well. Manchester said we do not want to develop 2 different documents, but does ask that “pending final approval by the committee” be noted when they are sent out. Roe agreed with keeping all names and encouraged open discourse with the students. Manchester called the question. Motion passed.
C. Change of District Request (Taylor, Mathies)
Taylor noted that CSU-Humboldt is on the northern border of California and travels mostly in District II. Both Districts I and II unanimously support the move. Schnoor called the question. Motion passed.
D. Change in Team and Individual Sweepstakes (Manchester)
Motion: The NIET will recognize the top 24 in Team and Individual Sweepstakes.
M/Manchester, S/Mayfield. Collie noted this would mean we recognize 1/4 of the teams in attendance but with 555 students, we don’t recognize the same fraction of students. Carver asked about awards cost increase and Pober noted that the present Lucite cost approximately $125 per award, so $500 more would be required for team and individual awards. Manchester said that we have events that vary in size, so the percentage of those students awarded already differs. He noted that since we recognize the top 24 in each event, consistency would hopefully allow that for sweeps awards as well. Schnoor noted that some events (with ties) advance more than 24. Carver asked about financial surplus. Schnoor indicated that next year, entry fees will decrease because of new cap, so that will impact finances, but in the past $1500-$3000 appears as surplus. McDonald noted that 24 is as arbitrary as 20, so what is the marginal benefit of awards 21-24? Carver spoke about her apprehension given the new cap for next year. Manchester indicated he would be fine with removing the motion until Spring 2006. M/Manchester, S/Butler to table until Spring 2006 meeting. Motion is tabled until Spring 2006 meeting.
E. Hired Judge Fees/Payments (Schnoor, Carver)
Motion: Increase the school fee for hired judges from $18 per uncovered slot to $20 per uncovered slot. Increase the honorarium paid to full-time hired judges from $125 to $150. Increase the honorarium paid to part-time hired judges from $10 per round to $15 per round.
Schnoor and Carver are presenting these as recommendations to the Board of Trustees. Schnoor noted that hired judge payment has not increased since the beginning of the NIET. M/Schnoor, S/Collie. Motion passed.
F. Participation at District Tournaments by Students Not Intending to Participate at the NIET-Discussion Item (Collie)
Collie noted District IV had 2 schools that wanted to come to the district tournament, but did not plan to attend the NIET. The wording “”will do so” made the district committee decide that if the school would not even consider attending (and they indicated they would not), they not be allowed to attend. Collie wanted to address intent from the body. Schnoor noted that the district tournament is not the last chance as Collie noted, but only an additional chance. Schnoor noted that subscription fees must be paid to compete. Yates claimed that if the subscription fee is paid, he does not see how the committee can prohibit schools from attending. Thompson said his district has always welcomed schools with open arms even if they do not intend to attend. The phrase in question is in the By-laws and the invitation. Yates noted the additional phrase allows people to tell the national tournament director if they are not going to the NIET. Mathies and Roe said their districts also invite all and might encourage more schools to consider attending in the future. Roberts spoke of the district tournament as a recruitment tool. Guthrie noted that NYU started going to the NIET only after years of attending the district tournament prior to going to the NIET. Bourassa expressed concern from the students for those schools that go certain years, but not others that are then prohibited from attending. Collie asked if a prohibition on NFA qualifications might be considered with the AFA district tournament. Smith spoke with concern over such an NFA prohibition. Collie said she does not want us to “advertise” the district tournament for NFA qualifications. Roe indicated his invite did reflect that. Yates thought that the district invite only went to those schools that paid subscription fees. Pober noted he invited all schools regardless of whether they intended when he was chair of District III. No additional discussion.
G. Size of District Tournament (Roe)
Carver noted that only 5 schools are required for the auto qualifications now. Roe indicated that the 66-cap has made his district consider moving the district tournament earlier. He removed this motion.
H. NIET Judging (Roe)
Motion: Each judge, whether affiliated or hired, will self-grade their ability in
each event as well as eliminate themselves from an event they clearly have
not coached nor competed in. This would be far superior to simply
indicating the one event that they feel least qualified to judge. If
judges, affiliated or not, do complete the self-grading form, they will be
denied coverage costs or refused as hires.
Roe claims he has heard from both students and coaches that the quality of judges for out-rounds should be addressed as numerous people judging certain events might not be the best choices. Roe asked that we consider a self-grading system which would then require more personnel for the out-round judge assignment table. M/Roe, S/McDonald. Collie spoke of the out-round assignment process. Hired judges have 9 rounds in prelims and only judge out-rounds voluntarily. Each of the 5 judges on an out-round panel must be from a different district. Any coach/school judge is obligated for the quarterfinal round and you are then obligated for one round beyond the last round that your school advances a student. They do try to honor event requests for elimination rounds. She cannot address judges who do not feel comfortable. Thompson added once we get past quarterfinals, choices become significantly limited. He asked that judges not go watch out-rounds if they are available. Schnoor noted that some judges go watch rounds and then recuse themselves from judging the event in later rounds as they have “seen the students.” Pober noted we are being too nice to let them out of that assignment just because they saw the performance earlier as an audience member. Butler asked from the students how Schnoor felt about it. Schnoor expressed great concern over the feasibility of implementation. Keeping judges “clean” for very late rounds is difficult as you never know whether they have students in those rounds. Schnoor has developed a form for judges that restates the judge’s responsibilities that will be given out at registration. Yates noted that judges are not usually assigned back-to-back rounds. He also thanked the out-round judge committee for their work. Pober noted a former student of his (who never made an out-round) asked if that created the perception that judges in prelims are less important than judges in out-rounds. Morris asked then why we allow any judge to choose one event they don’t feel qualified/want to judge since all the judges should be qualified or not judge. Goodnow indicated that she had a graduate student who did not feel qualified to judge a final. Smith noted that some of the best judges in the country are in the tab-room and on the NIET Committee, so why not get some of those people to judge those rounds. Roe feels the new form helps to assuage concerns, so he removes the motion from the floor with McDonald’s agreement.
I. Modification of Student Verification Form (Smith)
Smith asked that to the 4 bolded statements on the form, a 5th one be added: “To the best of my knowledge, all students listed meet the minimum GPA of 2.0” confirming the director’s understanding by signing. M/Smith, S/Morris. Motion passed.

McDonald spoke of data gathering process regarding the 66-cap. He expressed concern over the size of his district and what the cap will mean for regional tournaments. He would like to gather some longitudinal data over the next few years in regional tournaments. So, he asked if people would send result sheets to him. Schnoor reminded people there is nothing magical about the nine districts. Perhaps it is time to reconsider district alignment.

Schnoor noted the electronic system worked very well this year with nearly 90% of the NIET entries coming in that way. He spoke of the importance of fax numbers from schools.

Manchester asked for thanks to both Yates and Carver.

M/Manchester, S/Morris to adjourn. Meeting is adjourned at 3:32 p.m.