American Forensic Association National Individual Events Tournament Committee

Meeting at the Best Western Hotel and Conference Center – in the St. James room

Mankato, Minnesota

April 6, 2007

Members Present: Thompson, Chair, Mayfield, Secretary/District 7, Pober, Vice-Chair, Schnoor, Tournament Director, Carver, Chair Emeritus, Roebuck, District 1, Mathis, District 2, Worth, District 3, Collie, District 4, D. Smith, District 5, Edwards, District 6, Wickelgren, District. 8 Chair, Shineman, District 9, Leyes, Eastern Rep., Roberts, Southern Rep. Morris, Central Rep., White, Board of Trustees Chair, Zani, Student Rep., Shah, Student Rep., Magama, Student Rep., Loden, Student Rep., Gaer, Western Rep., Mayes, Comm. College Rep.

I. Call to Order

Thompson called the meeting to order at 9:21 and asked for introductions.

II. Election of officers:

A. Tournament Director: Pober/m Collie/s Larry Schnoor for director—accepted position

B. Chair: Carver/m, Pober/s Frank Thompson for chair—accepted position

C. Secretary: Pober/m, Morris/s Lee Mayfield for sec.—accepted position

III. Approval of Minutes from November meeting at NCA

Roberts/m Edwards/s to accept minutes—motion passed

IV. Officer Reports

A. NIET Committee Chair (Thompson) no report

B. Vice Chair (Pober) no report

C. Board of Trustees Chair (White) no report

D. Chair Emeritus (Carver) no appeals to report

E. Tournament Director (Schnoor)

Everything is ready to go. Registration begins at 7, Dist. Chairs are asked to remind schools to check for meal cards. All cards will have student name and code on it. Can be used on campus/vending machines, $26.00 on card and will work on Monday. It will not be possible to issue another card. 1430 slots for NIET, last minute drops have been taken care of, Two schools dropped late but included small entries so didn’t hugely impact the schematic, student enrollment has been checked, all buildings on campus are interconnected do not have to go outside. Pattern C is largest and will use a building farthest away, but the buildings are not as far as it looks on the map. Trafton Building is largest on campus and will be main one used; Ext. draw/prep will be in Shelborn Gym. Extemp competition rooms are in Armstrong Hall. Duo competition will all be in Armstrong as well. Student Union will be in ballot pickup/dropoff, postings on Sun/Mon in Union. Schools are encouraged to read directions on schematic, cell numbers provided if problems arise. Tournament booklet will be in packet at registration. Parking sat/sun anyplace that is not specific for loading or handicap. Parking lot across from Taylor is available. All parking information will be provided at registration. Warm-up rooms are available anywhere on campus. Most options for classrooms will be Armstrong Hall. Judges are in good shape, no one judges more than 7 rounds. Hired judges have forensic experience and background. Buffet style banquet is at Catle Ballroom—down near riverfront. No head table, committee members may sit with teams. Directions will be provided at registration. The single tree at ballroom planted was by Schnoor in memory of Glen Miller.

F. Secretary (Mayfield) minutes from the NCA meeting with serve as report

G. Webmaster (Cronn-Mills) Send change request to Dan Cronn-Mills

H. Tournament Host Reports

1. 2007 – University of Minnesota – Mankato (White)

Coat/visual aid check room in student union, but not officially responsible for anything left. Sewing kits/bobby pins/students will be available to provide assistance—ask for Ron. Anniversary celebration on Sunday in student union, cake provided. Smoking policy, cannot smoke within 15 ft of door. Secrete room in basement of student union that is indoor smoking room. Monday night—bandana brewery will open for the tournament, kitchen open late, karaoke will be available, taxi service information is provided. 18 to get in, 21 to drink.

2. 2008 – University of Texas – Austin (Cox)

Main tournament hotel changed to Crown Plaza $96.00 a night, I-35 same distance from campus, better parking to accommodate. Out rounds on Monday will be held at the hotel. All rooms renovated. Second tournament hotel is now cheaper, $54.00 Best Western. Student union will serve as the tab room; movie theatre will serve as posting area, ballot table outside of ballroom, cont. breakfast at union sat/sun, at hotel on Monday. Using main part of campus between union and main campus—“six pack” area.

Parking garage available on campus 5 minute walk to campus, UTC extemp drop off area, buses can pull up and drop off, sat/sun parking on campus will be allowed in non-tag parking. Dallas airport is 3 hrs away, Houston 3 hrs, San Antonio 1 ½ hr away- all good airports. No snow in April! But rain is always likely.

No declining balance cards, catered/box lunches will be provided

Pre-nationals tournaments will be the Hill Country Swing, 3rd or 4th weekend in September. “HFO” at UT in January. Regional “TIFA Fall”, 1st of Oct. in San Antonio

Open to all

3. Future Hosts (Schnoor, Thompson)

No bid for 2009, call is out for the tournament. District Chairs are encouraged to have schools from their district to submit a bid to host for 2009/10.

I. Committee Reports

1. AFA-NIET Student Committee (Pober, Zani, Shah)

Zani reports that the student committee was incredible, very engaged and very prepared. Lydia Nelson’s birthday was celebrated. New Student Representatives were elected for 2007-08, they are; Megan Loden, West Texas A&M University and Jose Magana, Arizon State University. Dist. 8 was not represented by a student representation and Zani points out how unfortunate there were no alternates for representing this area. Zani request that the NIET tournament site include clear event descriptions. Shah suggests that the NIET website is difficult to navigate. Zani reported that an ‘unofficial guidebook’ was created for student representatives for the coming year. Shah reports on the cross ex in extemp issue and confirms that the student reps. are in support of the approach as such they

MOVE to include a question and answer period only in the final round and consist of an open format with guidelines submitted to the competitors and judges, it is up to the judges’ discretion to use or not to use the question and answer period in the ranking of the round for a two year test period beginning with the NIET ‘08. The question and answer period will follow the format of—one question asked/question answered another question asked/answered etc., for up to three minutes. This will require an addition to the event description (Pober/s).

This change in format would also be reflected in the structure of extemporaneous speaking at the District Tournament. White suggests that the last speaker is disadvantaged by having to listen to a speaker, engage in question period, all before they could then focus on their own prep period. Zani argues that the change in the event would improve the experience for everyone involved. Morris calls the question. Pober/s

Wickelgren asked if there is a way to test this proposal at the national level without making it a requirement for dist. tournaments and other regular season tournaments.

Pober calls the question Schnoor/s MOTION PASSED

Zani/m to alter the AFA-NIET bylaws to change the formula for qualification placements. The proposal will change the 1:4 ratio to a 1:3 ratio because of difficulty with geographic challenges. Schnoor suggest that the evidence isn’t there to support the conclusion that districts are having difficulty with at-large qualifications. Zani argues that smaller teams in smaller districts have to travel more to get the number of qualifications, bump up novice categories to open, and teams have to travel longer distances. Schnoor suggest that it is the number of schools at a tournament is the issue and not the size of the events. Schnoor suggest that more tournaments are cancelled due to the number of teams rather than the small entries in events. Pober, suggest that focus should be placed on the district tournament rather than other regular season travel because the numbers suggest that not all districts are able to fill the 3 automatic qualifications for the district tournament in every event. Morris asked if the change was for quality issue rather than quantity. Pober suggests that if the proposal was passed it would have the reverse effect later in the season. Mathis suggests that the 1:4 ratio doesn’t have as big an impact on his District. Morris asked if the students had to travel more and more this year to get qualified for the NIET. Magama says that the past year many of his peers experienced breaking into final but did not receive the needed qualifying leg. White wonders if attendance at tournaments isn’t a bigger impact rather than the quality of competition. Mayfield asked if the students would accept looking at the number of teams it takes to qualify a tournament rather than the ratio of slots. Zani agrees that the number of teams might be a possible suggest for improving the qualification process. Morris points out that there are a lot of variables that might improve the process, but lower there ratio to 1:3 would help the process of at-large qualification. Edwards asks if it would not benefit us to examine the entire system again. Morris asked that we act on the issue rather than prolonging the problem. Payne points out the health of forensic and the demand for chances for qualifying legs; if we adjust the at-large process it would lesson the wear and tear on coaches/competitors. Schnoor points out that those schools that travel more are traveling to increase their entries at the NIET. Payne argues that it isn’t just a function of large teams attempting to increase their NIET entries, some programs are traveling more and more and having to fight harder to get their qualifications. Gaer suggest that the student proposal would assist the smaller programs for gaining qualification. Zani points out that perhaps 1:4 isn’t the root cause of difficulty but it would help alleviate the issue—the 1:3 ratio would attempt to help. White suggest looking at the tournament report forms to discover if the smaller numbers are the issue of getting at-large qualifications. Collie worries that lowering the ratio to 1:3 would damage the quality of the competition level at the NIET and reminds the committee that AFA was constructed to be a high caliber national competition. Pober reminds the committee of Craig Brown’s original proposal of 1:4 was to increase the quality of the national tournament. Pober urges that a committee be formed with the members of the student committee be represented to investigate the issue and report back at the NCA in 07. Zani agreed that the students were comfortable with the idea of forming a committee to investigate the at-large qualification process. Zani/m Pober/s moved to form a committee to investigate the proposal brought forth by the student committee and report back at the NCA in ’07. Carver urged the committee to be creative in their thinking process of how to level the playing field to address size of the tournament as well as quality of the tournament. Schnoor encourages the committee to not look at just one issue; the ratio issue, as the solution. Zani asks if the ‘high quality’ of AFA damages the health of forensics. Morris calls question to form the committee Schnoor/s

Morris (Chair), Edwards, Magama, Loden, White, Gaer will serve on this committee

Zani/m Pober/s a committee be formed to investigate the arrangement of patterns of events for the NIET.

Schnoor (Chair), Wickelgren, Pober, Collie, Leyes, Magama

2. Distinguished Service Committee (Pober)

No nominations this year. The call for nominations is on website, encourage district members to nominate. October 1 is the deadline for nominations.

3. New Coach Award (Pober)

Award will go to Desiree Rowe, strongly encourages more nominations.

4. Research (Carver)

2 research proposals: Cronn Mills will provide questionnaire about budgets/staffing/data—submitting will be anonymous; Grad Student at Mankato will distribute survey at registration about warm-up practices.

5. Awards (Schnoor, Pober)

Midwest did great job; all awards are on-sight. Increase in cost was 2% this year. 25 yr recognition will be framed certificates—6 awards will be given.

6. All-American Team (Morris)

21 nominations to review, 7 automatic awards. Committee is reviewing the nominations later this weekend. Potential for the largest All-American Team this year. 3 schools had 2 nominations each.

7. Manchester Scholar Series (Pober)

One nomination, committee did not feel that the award should be given and urges nominations for Fall 07. Manchester feels that money should be given up front; different people have different needs—perhaps buying out a course or childcare. Manchester believes there needs to be a stipulation of compliance signed by recipient and if not in compliance the money would be returned. Manchester is more than happy to continue the research series. Thompson asked if there was a need to put that information out there before we have an applicant. Edwards asks to consider if there is a tie to an administrative (person’s school) contact. Wickelgren worries that that idea would limit the type of people to submit a proposal. Edwards suggests just having a contact to provide reference for applicant. Carver asks if it currently requires IRB approval—Pober says only if it requires human subjects/depends on the research. Carver is concerned with the additional stipulations not being present from the beginning and urges the committee to keep the information up front. Morris/m Pober/s that committee will make a recommendation on what the rewording should be and if constitutional changes are needed and will report back to NIET committee in Nov.

8. Technology (Smith)

No report. A new chair is needed as Smith is leaving as district chair. Smith suggests observing the extemp draw process to make recommendations. Roebuck agrees to chair and observe the draw process at the NIET.

J. Old Business

1. Event Description Correction (Zani)

Thompson offered a handout of re-wording of description of events from Zani.

(taken from Zani’s original document)

The Six Descriptions that need to he Updated

***Changes from minutes http://www.mnsu.eduhpcomm/niet/minutes/AFA-NIETMinutesApril2005.htm

Impromptu Speaking: An impromptu speech, serious in nature, with topic selections varied by round and by section. Topics will be ~~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 [add - this .vas just missing in the minutes, I think it was just a copy/paste mistake] permitted.

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 mayor 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 [add - for consistency] limit is 10 minutes ~~including introduction~~.

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

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] A primary focus of this event should be on the development of the theme through the use of narrative/story, language, and/or characterization. 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.

Drama Interpretation: A cutting that represents one or more characters from a play or plays of literary merit. [add] 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.

Poetry Interpretation: A selection or selections of poetry of literary merit, which may be drawn from more than one source. [add] A primary focus of this event should be 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.

Locations of the AF A -NIET Event Descriptions

Official Event Descriptions on the AFA-NIET main website http://www.mnsu.edu/spcornminiet/eventdescri-ptions-new0607.htm

Official AFA-NIET Tournament Invitation http://www.mnsu.edu/spcomm/niet/invite2007/AFAinvite2007.htm

Official AFA-NIET Bylaws Event Descriptions http://www.mnsu.edu/spcomm/niet/charter/afa-nietbylawsOct2005.htm

*this one still lists the very old rules, with impromptu being 'proverbial in nature'

Completed Set of Edited Event Descriptions

AFA-NIET Description of Events

A EVENTS

Impromptu Speaking: An impromptu speech, serious in nature, with topic selections varied by round and by section. Topics will be 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 permitted.

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

BEVENTS

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 mayor 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). A primary focus of this event should be on the development of the theme through the use of narrative/story, language, and/or characterization. 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 introduction.

CEVENTS

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 mayor 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 mayor 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. 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.

Poetry Interpretation: A selection or selections of poetry of literary merit, which may be drawn from more than one source. A primary focus of this event should be 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 AF A-NIET Charter Bylaws Section X

Pober suggests that more correction might need to be made from NCA 05—example/’serious’ to ‘substantive’ in nature. Morris points out that Zani’s intention was that the location of the website needs to be standardized in all links. Carver suggest that the vice chair and chair could review and formalize the changes. Smith wants to thank Zani for the work of clarifying all changes, NIET committee agrees.

2. Development Conference on Individual Events (Schnoor)

Material coming out for summer 2008 in late spring, location still to be decided. Minneapolis and Denver are being considered. No format for topic areas have been formalize as of yet. Thompson suggests that the committee look at theme for NCA the following year so that papers/panels could be submitted for NCA.

3. 25 Year Recognition Award (Pober)

6 awards will be given.

4. Cross examination in finals of extemporaneous (Collie)

Collie asked for Pober/Smith/Mayfield to report on experience of this event at 06-07’s tournaments. Pober reports that the event was successful except for a final round with 8 speakers. Each speaker was allowed a full three minutes for cross-examination. Schnoor asks for logistics of time management in terms of double entered speakers. Pober suggests that it is only adding an additional approx. 10 minutes to a speaker’s flight pattern. Smith reports that his experience was a bit different, CX had 30 sec. to formulate a question, speaker had 90 sec. to respond—only one question allowed, but feedback was incredibly positive. Morris asks why have the question and answer period in the first place as she ties to clarify some sort of rationale for the proposed change for the event. Payne suggests that it benefits both speakers. Mathis reports that in his area question comes form the judge and not fellow competitor, feedback for this approach was positive as well. Committee has no recommendation or proposal for the NIET committee at this point.

5. NIET/NDT Award (Schnoor)

Still in the process of correction for the NIET webpage. Joint award for teams who travel to both tournaments (NDT/NIET) will be posted. New webmaster for NDT has been appointed and Cronn-Mills is working with the new webmaster. Schnoor suggests that AFA not NIET will put money forth to recognize the award. Carver asks how many placings would be recognized. Thompson reports that it is the top three that are recognized.

K. New Business

55 At-large entry proposal Cox/m, Worth/s

(taken from Cox’s original document)

Proposal: To reformulate the entry caps currently emplaced by the AFA-NIET, to reduce

the cap on At-Large qualifications to a maximum of 55 entries/slots per program. To

remove any cap on entries qualified at the regional District AFA-NIET qualifying

tournaments. (Effective for the 2008 AFA-NIET)

Details: The current cap on entries for the AFA-NIET exists at 66 total entries per

program. This proposal would alter that cap, reducing it to a cap of 55 entries applicable

only to At-Large qualifications. Any slots that compete for and receive and automatic

qualification at the various District tournaments would be eligible above the cap of 55 At-

Large qualifications, and any slot receiving an automatic qualification would be ineligible

for At-Large qualification unless receiving a third leg at the District tournament while the

student’s program falls below the 55 At-Large cap.

Reasons for Altering the System: Currently, the cap as placed provides different

standards of competition and qualification based on operating size. The result is:

a) Structural/systematic disenfranchisement of individual students/individual

entries from programs affiliated with the NIET that operate beyond a 66 entry

size;

b) Reduced involvement at the AFA District qualifying tournaments at the

programmatic and student/entry levels;

c) Subjective assessment with tangible harms to the student/coach

environment—but only for programs operating beyond the 66 entry cap.

Fixed entry caps are appropriate when one or more of three conditions exist:

1) When admission to the event is based on open entry (without qualification

standards)

2) When there is an oversight procedure that insures that entry is restricted

equally for all affiliated programs and with equal impacts for every individual

student or entry

3) When there is an alternative qualification protocol that allows for individual

students/slots to demonstrate competitive worthiness when subjectively or

systematically hindered from participation at the programmatic level

The current cap does not allow for any of these conditions. The argument can be, and has

been, made that “all programs are equally restricted in size.” However, this condition of

programmatic size does NOT apply to all programs either in theory or in practice, but

rather to a limited few. The individual students involved in those programs, then, become

systematically disenfranchised regardless of perceived quality level and without

comparison to individual students/slots representing programs operating below the

enforced limit.

Like the AFA-NDT qualification procedure (which uses national comparisons to select

first and second round invitees, and then a District qualifier which provides a final

avenue of qualification for those teams not previously selected), this proposal provides a

more objective competitive standard for qualification without significant increase in

population at the AFA-NIET.

Because individual district automatic qualifying slots would be ineligible for At-Large

qualification, bump-downs to alternate qualifiers would be a one-for-one trade, helping to

control NIET entry sizes. This would also help to alleviate continuous modifications of

qualifying students in areas where the district tournament occurs earlier in the year. For

districts where qualifying occurs later, it provides a final adjudicated assessment

mechanism for determining national qualification.

This method would also validate that the quality level of those slots selected for

automatic qualification at the district level operates in the context of the broader

participation of all programs, regardless of size and without prejudice. It would increase

participation in district tournaments where individual programs are currently restricted in

involvement by the 66 cap, while at the same time elevating the level of perceived value

of the district tournaments themselves. The current system allows for qualification of

entries from specific programs without a competitive context from programs who have

previously exceeded the 66 cap—meaning that there is no standard of comparison that

includes all possible entries not previously selected for competition based on the At-

Large procedure.

Finally, by capping only the number of At-Large qualifications at a reduced level (55 in

comparison to 66), the 55 and Districts Plan would account for the moderate number of

increased automatic qualifications that might occur at the district level.

I ask that this plan be enacted for the 2008 national tournament at the University of

Texas, where even a significant increase in participation may be accommodated by the

facilities, and that the plan be reviewed at the conclusion of the 2008 nationals in

preparation for 2009.

Respectfully submitted,

Randy Cox

University of Texas at Austin

AFA District 3 Committee

Schnoor reports that from NIET 2005 95 schools competed with a total of 1548 slots, in 2006 92 schools competed with a total of 1412 slots, in 2007 83 schools competed with a total of 1430 slots the cap has resulted in a slight lowering of slots which means less number of classrooms needed for competition. Pober asks if there are any changes in the number of schools with 66 slots. Schnoor reports that that has not changed drastically from year to year. Morris asks about the number of district qualifications. Schnoor reports that in 2005 there were 301 district qualifications, in 2006 there were 278 district qualifications, and in 2007 there were 264 district qualifications. Smith points out the confusion of reading the proposal. Thompson asks for dist response: District 1/Roebuck worries about smaller programs, no district support, District 2/Mathis, feels it would create disenfranchisement, no district support for proposal, District 3/Worth votes to support proposal, feels it would enfranchise smaller programs, would equally impose qualification process for all programs, entry caps are in place for district tournament already so it wouldn’t have the result of flooding a district tournament with slots, District 4/Collie feels it would unfairly raise district qualifiers for larger schools and that the 66 maximum slot cap hasn’t been in place long enough, District 5/Smith doesn’t feel like the proposal was a beneficial change, and allows for a team to show up at NIET with 85+ slots, District 6/Edwards reports a resounding NO from her district; citing a disadvantage for small programs and advantage larger ones, District 7/Mayfield reports no district support for proposal and points out that it is too soon to make changes to the 66 maximum slot cap, District 8/Wickelgren reports no reaction to proposal from his district, District 9/Gaer reports no district support for proposal and feels it would ultimately would hurt the district tournament. Loden reports little support for the proposal suggesting it would change the nature of the district tournament and suggests that the cut off for qualifications is going to be arbitrary at some point and seems that 66 is working. Edwards asks that we consider the state of the industry—and this proposal might damage the industry of forensics more than help it and reminds us that it isn’t a BIG vs. SMALL program discussion but should reflect the health of forensics. MOTION FAILED

Ban smoking proposal Schwartz/m, Schnoor/s

MOVE: Tobacco (smoking) during the hours of competition while at the National Individual Events Tournament be prohibited.

(taken from Schwartz’s original document)

As a group of students and educators frequently engaged in discourse about constructive social change, I find this issue (to the best of my knowledge) has not been previously addressed. Evidence of tobacco’s harmful effects has been well documented within the medical community. The American Lung Association has an excellent collection of medical studies available for further exploration (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=39853). And recently, ‘indisputable evidence’ addresses the causal link between exposure to second-hand smoke and serious diseases.[1]

Years of medical evidence, along with this groundbreaking report, have sparked a nationwide initiative to create tobacco-free environments both in public and private establishments. Therefore, I suggest that we strive to promote healthy living within our own community as well. Such a paradigm, I believe, is already supported by the AFA-NIET committee with the creation of “AFA-NIET Wellness Initiatives for Tournament Directors” (approved April 1997) and “AFA-NIET Wellness Initiatives for Coaches and Directors” (approved November 1998).[2]

I propose that the forensics community take action to reduce the impact of first-hand and second-hand tobacco use on forensics competitors and coaches. I assume that the initiatives regarding tobacco and alcohol use at post-tournament activities would apply to tournament behavior. However, the actions of both students and coaches are not congruent with this initiative. In fact, the forensic community seems to embrace the use of tobacco. It is a common ground for coaches and competitors. Currently, the most overt acts taken against smoking at tournaments is when tournament directors remind us to use the proper disposal receptacles for cigarettes so “we don’t leave a trail behind”.

Besides promoting healthier lifestyles, such a restriction would be beneficial for the campus that holds the national tournament. Competitors participating in the AFA-NIET are considered guests of the host school. And as such, we should strive to become as little of an inconvenience as possible to that particular university. Other large-scale national academic gatherings have made these kinds of declarations as well. For example, I had the opportunity to attend the National Communication Association Conference in San Antonio, TX last November. Though the specific reasoning for making such a decision was not addressed, smoking was prohibited at the convention center.[3]

In addition to the discussion of prohibiting smoking by the AFA-NIET committee, I hope that this issue can be addressed within the broader forensics community. My goal is to ignite a discussion of a smoking ban in a larger context. I believe that the AFA-NIET committee has the resources and connections necessary to promote such a dialogue. I am but one person with one opinion and I believe it would be valuable to invite other students and coaches to share their input in this matter.

At this point, I urge that you consider this proposal at the next AFA-NIET meeting.

Sincerely,
Sarah A. Schwartz, Concordia College

Schnoor reports that in January he was approached to present this proposal. Rationale is that we should be concerned with health of students, reflect the ‘mood’ of the country to move to smoking banns. Thompson asks for district response: District1/Roebuck reports mixed support for the proposal, District 2/Mathis is impressed with student initiative but reports no district support, District 3/Worth supports the idea cannot support the motion, District 4/Collie understands the health concerns but considers this a civil rights issue and reports no district support for the proposal, District 5/Smith reports no district support, District 6/Edwards sees the proposal as a nice idea, but no reports no district support as it is fairly easy to isolate smoking, District 7/Mayfield reports no district support, District 8/Wickelgren reports that MAFLE lost a host school because of a smoking issue, loves the idea but cannot support proposal, District 9/Gaer sees this as a rights issue and not a health issue, cannot really go against the rules/regulations of host schools, Magama reports no student support for proposal based on difficulty of enforcement and the infringement of personal rights. Morris calls the question

MOTION FAILED

Carver asked that we be mindful to respect the rights of non-smokers who have to pass through the ‘smoking section.’

3. All-American application form changes (Morris)

MOVE to include as part of the process of All—American Team application; an official transcript, a ‘forensic philosophy’ statement (limited to one page), as well as adding to the cover page the GPA, Major.

Edwards points out that some institutions won’t provide an official transcript—however it could be sent to the committee by the applicant’s registrar. White asks for clarification of ‘forensic philosophy’ and suggest that a cover letter might be better or a ‘personal statement’. Pober/s

MOTION PASSED.

4. Re-Districting (Shineman/m Pober/s)

Propose that the AFA-NIET Committee create an ad hoc committee to explore, gather information, create criteria, and make recommendations to the AFA-NIET Committee, as a whole, concerning re-districting.

Committee consist of:

Shineman (Chair), Schnoor, Payne, Wickelgren, Roberts, Collie, Roebuck, Leys, Magama, Gaer

5. Discussion of Running District Qualifiers (Mathis)

Mathis requests for a sharing of information on how the various district tournaments are held:

District1/R. Smith Swing, two flights, 1 judge, District 4/Collie, two day tournament, 3 flights/final, 1 judge prelim/3 finals, District 5/Payne 1 day tournament, 2 patterns of competition, 1 judge prelim/3 final, District 6/Edwards swing tournament does not use AFA flighting, one judge in prelims, three judges in finals, held in January, District 7/Mayfield swing tournament, AFA flighting, 2 prelim judges/4 final judges, District 8/Wickelgren runs events together in the same round, District 9/Mays most events go straight to finals, one day, 3 judges finals.

6. “No Show” rule at NIET (Shineman)

Shineman points out that no where in the by-laws of tournament is there an explanation of what happens for speaker points/ranks for ‘no show.' Pober reminds the committee that students aren’t allowed to advance to out-rounds unless you are available to compete in out-rounds. Schnoor reports that in the past a student has been double booked if for an extreme reason a student couldn’t make it to the round. NIET does not presently have a policy but it could be developed for NCA in 07.

No action taken.

7. Schnoor states some states do not have state organizations, but many do. We have no waiver in place for accommodating a state tournament that does not meet the already existing at-large qualification process. Also sister organizations like DSR and Pi Kappa Delta aren’t covered.

No action taken.

8. Cost of NIET Slots

MOVE that the cost of the NIET slots be increase from $6 to $9, at the request of the Board of Trustees. This would not impact the cost of uncovered slots.

Gaer/m Roberts/s

MOTION PASSED

Pober/m to adjourn Roberts/s

Adjourned at 3:20

Respectfully submitted by

Lee Mayfield

[1] Carmona, R. H. (2006). The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: A report of the surgeon general. Retrieved February 10^th 2007, from the

United States Department of Health and Human Services Web site: http://www.

surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/

[2] AFA-NIET (n.d.).  College forensics and wellness. Retrieved

               February 10, 2007 from University of Maryland, Department of

               Communication Web site: http://www.mnsu.edu/spcomm/niet/

               charter/wellness_initiatives.htm

[3] Ninety-second annual convention of the national communication association

program. (2006, November 16-19). Retrieved February 10, 2007 from

http://www.natcom.org/nca/files/ccLibraryFiles/FILENAME/000000000986/Pages1-38.pdf