AFA –National Individual Events Tournament Committee Meeting

NOT APPROVED

Meeting at the Nation Communication Association National Conference

Convention Center, Room 214-B

San Antonio, Texas

Members present: Thompson, Chair, Pober, Vice-Chair, Mayfield, Secretary-District7, Schnoor, Tournament Director, Cronn-Mills, Webmaster, Roebuck, District 1, Northrup, District 2, Worth, District 3, Collie, District 4, Smith, District 5, Edwards, District 6, Shineman, District 9, Mays, Comm. College Rep., Roberts, Southern Rep., Leyes, Eastern Rep., Morris, Central Rep., Gaer, Western Rep., Shah, Student Rep., Zani, Student Rep., White, Chair-Board of Trustees

I. Call to Order

Thompson called the meeting to order at 12:05 and asked for introductions. M/Schnoor S/Smith to accept the minutes from the April 06 meeting of the NIET. Minutes approved. Thompson reminded committee of the need for email approval of minutes before posting.

II. Officer Reports

A. Chair

Thompson reports that changes have been made to invite content, reduced to 12 pages from 20, less cluttered—asking feedback on it. Website confusion in terms of event descriptions but not all links are coming up the same, a request as been sent to the webmaster to correct the links on the page.

He announced that request were made from students concerning eligibility—grad students having never competed and approval was given.

Waiver/extension have been given due to medical problems—full year of competition given.

B. Vice Chair

Pober reports that he has been emailing students—students will report back

C. Board of Trustees, Chair

White handed out copy of financial statement and reports that the balance of October is a bit less due to covering the cost of student representatives. No site visit will be needed for this year’s national tournament.

D. Chair Emeritus

Carver not present at NCA. Thompson reports that no request for research for 2007 NIET at this time.

E. Tournament Director

Schnoor reports that the 2006 NIET went well. Completion of the editing of the final round videotaping is in the works.

The 2005 DVDs from Kansas and almost all for 2006 will be available soon.

He thanked the committee working in tab room for 06 NIET.

F. Secretary

Mayfield asked that Pober’s minute from the April meeting of the NIET stand as his report.

G. Webmaster

Cronn-Mills reports that everything is up to date and he still willing to host website.

H. Tournament Host Reports

2007 – Mankato

White reports that the banquet will be hosted off-campus in a big band ballroom, buffet style, price range $16-$18. There will be a slight change for opening ceremony in terms of location—Taylor center is potential location. Parking: van may park anywhere on campus; for bus there will be a van/shuttle passes available. Judges availability is good; for warm-up tournament in October the tournament only used hired judges for three or four rounds each. Potential walking on campus on Monday, but not far to walk. In terms of hotels; Americinn next to campus easy access to campus help to save on money for rental car, shuttle availability from Minneapolis—group rate available, information will go out in January mailing. If traveling with a big buss, it is much better to stay at Best Western instead of Holiday Inn. The campus is 1.5 hrs from Minneapolis Airport. Debit card should be usable in bookstore and potentially off campus. January 27-28 MSU will host another Mid-America Forensic Tournament. The 28^th will be on the Mankato campus.

2008 – University of Texas at Austin

Schnoor complete the site visit completed. Crown Plaza will serve as the tournament hotel, convenient to campus, out-rounds will be held there on Monday. “Six pack” building will be the main buildings used. Banquet will be in student union on campus. May have box lunches instead of debit card.

Future Hosts – (Schnoor, Thompson)

Schnoor and Thompson report that no contact has been made by potential host at this date, looking for multiple bids for 2009-11. Pober asked about San Francisco State University, Smith asked about Akron University—nothing to report from either program at this point.

III. Committee Reports

A. AFA-NIET Student Committee

Zani and Shah report that they have been emailing with students. No strong reaction to laptops in extemp prep. room, however issues of internet access is a concern. They are looking at proposing a potential student service award. They suggest that some guidelines for spectators be created with the inclusion of brief description of events. Zani raised the issue that the description for Informative Speaking says “tech/new issue,” but will address this later in the agenda.

B. Distinguished Service Committee

Pober reports that no nominees were made for the award, therefore the will be no award for 2007. He encourages multiple nominations for 2008. He reminded the committee that the deadline is in early fall for nominations. Schnoor suggested that we could use the list of those attending NIET to get the word out as well as reminding the District Chairs to use the District Tournaments for the following year (07) to put together nominations. Smith suggested that a reminder be included in the ballot packet at NIET. Roberts suggested that it also be included in the in calendar.

C. Outstanding New Forensic Coaching Award

Pober reports that there were multiple nominations but the committee moves that the award go to Desiree Rowe. M/Schnoor S/Gaer. Motion passed.

D. Research Committee

No request for research at the NIET at this date.

E. Awards Committee

Pober and Schnoor report that Midwest will not raise the cost by 6% as originally estimated, but only by 2.5%. The acrylic work will cost $7,800. Schnoor confirmed that there are pewter plates left over from previous tournaments. There are 15 All American awards remaining—but they have date on them and cannot be used. Future awards will not have the date on them.

F. AFA-NIET All American Team Committee

Morris reminded the committee that teams can now nominate 2 per school, also that the nominating committees need to send all information for automatic bids. All nominations should have copies of the official transcripts included. Each district may have only 1 automatic qualification and 5 at-large nominations. Thompson reminded the committee that all nominations be complete at the district tournament.

G. Dr. Bruce Manchester Scholar Series

Pober reports that the committee has received one nomination; however, the committee hasn’t seen it due to I.T. problems. The committee will make a decision soon. Schnoor pointed out that at Florida (06) we did not get a research report, but a summary of what is planned. This year we will have a formal presentation—Schnoor is working on where the presentation will go in NIET schedule. He questioned if money should be awarded up front. Thompson asked if anything is written out as procedure for completion; if not we should include as part of the procedure be 50% initially then remaining balance when completed. Edwards suggest that the award be set it up like a grant—initial report/mid-term report/final report—created like any federal grant agency. Morris stated that on the application form it suggest that the money is to be used to begin research. Edwards noted that if we expect a ‘product’ then we need to set up a contract. Schnoor reminded that Manchester was expecting a final product. White suggested that recipient provide receipts. Thompson asked Pober to take discussion under advisement and report back in April.

H. Technology Committee

This committee was created at the NIET in Florida (06) and includes: Smith, chair, Worth, Shineman, Roebuck, Shah, and Cronn-Mills. The committee dealt with the following questions:

1) Should the NIET host school prohibit/not provide wireless access?

Committee feels that the host should not provide, but not sure about prohibiting access as it makes filing system based on html systems problematic. Schnoor mentioned that a competitor can access internet from cell phones. Northrup asked how are files being created and perhaps the committee set-up guidelines for on- line filing. Asking for feedback from schools using laptop Smith encourages this committee not endorse ONE way to do file. Morris suggested that the rules be made explicit. Shineman asked if providing service hinders the host campus server. He suggests that we might want to consider offering a guest server provider. Pober asked if no wireless mean no wireless ANYTHING. Three times this committee said no to this idea. He pointed out that triad issue questions makes it very easy to Google all issues, the danger of prohibition is really tough— we cannot be there 100% of the time. Edwards suggested that perhaps it is time to change the approach of creating extemp questions and pointed out that the money issue of accessibility is the same issue originally with tubs and subscriptions. Roebuck suggested that rules should be in place; code of ethics competitors sign off on. Smith reminded that the rules already state that no internet access allowed. Mayes noted that the perception of internet = ownership of user and suggested that this committee will have to combat this issue. Northrup noted that well endowed teams could come in with their own search engine data base. Zani reminded us that even with instantaneous access , you still have to figure it out in 30 minutes—cost disparity already exist in terms of access to Lexus/Nexus. Morris noted that the tournament is the only place we can put rules on anyone, “real world” argument doesn’t really work for her and urges the committee to control what we can control. Pober suggest that we consider a question and answer cross examination period for final round. Smith reported that at the Bradley tournament they do run student cross examination in extemp and it has never impacted tournament scheduling. Shineman stated that the cost argument isn’t a big factor because of accessibility—most schools in his area have laptops. Worth noted that he hates moving away from tubs and questions how we can keep people from using internet access other than banning laptops. White states that she appreciates Morris comments but if you put a rule in place you have to enforce the rule. Smith noted that the rule is currently in place and that we could count on the student on enforcing the rule. Shineman asked how many are in tournament prep room to monitor. Schnoor answers, 2. Shineman asked, could we put more in prep room to help monitor? Schnoor, sure but then we are impacting the judging pool. Schnoor reminded the committee that if a charge is leveled the person making the charge has to provide proof and in terms of extemp it is difficult to prove access to internet. White stated that nothing in the rules say you have to prep in the prep room, how do we police what happens when someone leaves?

2) Should we prohibit electrical access?

Committee believes that is should be prohibited for safety reasons.

3) Should teams be allowed to network their laptops together?

Committee believes that teams should be allowed to network team laptops but no recommendation is provided by committee.

Roebuck suggest that extempcollective.com gives an opportunity to pool resources, offers collaboration pre-tournament but during the competition all teams are on their own. Pober reminded the committee that a proposal suggested that Extemporaneous Speaking was an individual effort and does networking go against this? Zani asked, Is it allowable to use information from someone else’s tubs? Smith stated that no discussion is allowed in extemp prep room. Schnoor noted that some schools agree to put extemp files/tubs together.

The committee makes the following recommendations: (1) The NIET needs a statement in the invitation relieving AFA from responsibility for damage done to equipment in extemp prep room, (2) The NIET needs a statement that gives NIET access to laptops if a question comes up. However, the committee realizes that no one under 17 can sign this form. (3) That printers not be allowed in extemp prep-room. (4) The extemp question writing committee needs to be aware of this discussion so that the questions can be adjusted for these issues.

Zani wished to thank the committee, on behalf of the students, for moving forward with this issue. Thompson echoes the thanks to the committee

I. Eligibility Committee

Carver suggests that any eligibility appeals be directed to Chair and this committee not be in existence any more. She recommends that the eligibility check-list become the responsibility of the chair emeritus. M/Smith S/Morris Move to dissolve the committee—motion passed. Schnoor reminded that the eligibility forms need to be checked before the tournament not during the tournament.

J. Distinguished Student Service Committee

Collie reported that the committee came up with nine options, discussed all, but decided not to come up with a new award. She suggested that a student coaching award be investigated. Recommendation is that the districts should come up with their own awards. M/Schnoor S/Edwards Move that the committee not come up with a new award at this time—motion passed.

IV. Old Business

A. Developmental Conference on Individual Events

Schnoor reported that 2007 is the year for the Argumentation Conference and even number years will host an Individual Events Conference. Tentative sight is Minneapolis.

B. 25 Year Recognition Award

Pober asked what ideas people would like for this award. Edwards asked where they would be recognized and reminded the committee of NIET at Bradley with ribbons so the recognition is throughout the tournament. No action was taken at this time.

C. Changes in content included in invitation feedback

Thompson asked if there were any problems with invitation. Send feedback to Thompson if problems arise.

V. New Business

A. Proposal to Limit the Number of Judges from a School at the NIET

Smith reports that District 5 moves, “All schools that enter the AFANIET shall be limited to the number of (full time equivalent) judges to cover their entry.

Rational—judges have impact on the field of competition. Eleven judges would cover the 66 maximum slots.

Mayes asked if additional judges would then be used as hired judges. Schnoor stated that if additional judges are brought they can’t assume they will be used as hired because of the hired judging pool. Pober asked how soon ahead of time would we know if a judge can be placed in the hired pool, so that tickets can be purchases. Schnoor will attempt to know 1 month in advance. Morris asked if a team needs 3 judges to cover slots but bring 5 would the others be used as full time judges. Schnoor answered that the team would have to indicate which judges would be full time. Smith reminded that the intention of the motion is to attempt to level the playing field of the judging pool. Morris asked does this trickle down to regular season tournaments, or hopes this trickles down—can re reinforce the idea that you should cover your slots. Schnoor responded that in the past tournament host have been late providing a list of full time hired judges and then the problem of finding judges comes up—He will work with tournament host to assure there will be enough judges. Pober noted that a lot of small tournaments have a difficult time finding judges so the ‘trickle down’ becomes problematic. White request a friendly amendment—adding the wording of “full time” before the word ‘judge.’ Morris asked how many hired judges are from the host school. Schnoor responded that it differs from year to year depending on the host schools. Pober asked would it help that judges are coded and then it is the responsibility of team to keep up with the judge codes. Smith reminds that this seems to be taking away the advantage of knowing who your judge is before going to the round. Gaer states the problem with using judge codes is that it is harder to keep up with who has judge what round in prelims. Northrup suggest a NCA panel on this issue to examine the ‘power of the judging block’ to make these issues more visible. Morris called question—motion passed and will be applied to 08

B. Issues related to Interpretation Event Description/Rules

Schnoor brought up an issue related to last years nationals. He reports that a competitor used an opening monologue from late night TV and as the event description exist now the opening monologue wouldn’t fit. What will we do about an issue like this in the future—if the issue is brought up during the tournament. Pober reminded that the committee already discussed teleplays as a viable choice, the notion of literary merit already exist in our definition. Thompson asked for clarification, the judge judging the round has to make the decision for the round. Schnoor explained if a complaint arises during a tournament, what should be done so the tournament isn’t held up while a decision is made. Thompson suggests that someone has to be put in place to take charge of it and perhaps it should be the chair emeritus. Edwards suggest whoever is in charge has to be familiar with all the history of the issues raise. Morris asked what is being taken to this person. Issues of literary merit are difficult to prove, but the genre definitions are dated. Collie suggest judges might like some place to go to bounce ideas off-proposed that chair emeritus and the chair be responsible for this position. M/Collie S/Pober Motion: That if any ethical consideration come up during the run of the tournament that the chair and emeriti in consultation with others as necessary investigate the charge—motion passed

Zani points out event description consistence issues. Currently the PA events describe the maximum time limit differently. M/Zani S/Smith Move to standardize all ‘time’ lines to say “maximum time limit.” And standardize all “focus” lines to say “a primary focus.”

M/Pober S/Roebuck move to table discussion and address at April’s meeting. Discussion tabled.

C. Clarification of at-large process

Collie stated a tournament was offered with 9 schools in attendance, but only 7 schools were doing individual events; two teams competing in parli debate—since parli isn’t considered an individual event this tournament would not count for at-large legs. Schnoor reminds district chairs of the need to confirm the eligibility of a tournament. White asked if parli is offered are we considering it an individual event. Do we need to clarify what constitutes an Individual Event? No action was taken at this point.

D. Increase the number of judges in finals at NIET

Roebuck moves to increase the number of judges in a final round from five to seven. M/Roebuck S/Pober Morris asks why just finals as opposed to all out rounds. Roebuck, availability of judges and offers greater diversity in opinions. Smith wonders, in terms of assigning judges, will the proposal increase the ability to find clean judges. Schnoor suggests that 5 judges are already demonstrating diversity. He points out those five different judges are representing five different regions. He urges that we cannot compare NIET with other organizations because the judging pool decreases as rounds advance. It will increase the turn around time to find the judges and assign them. It would require changing the entire tab program JUST for the final round. Zani points out that if you put seven in finals you should put them in quarters and semis as well and suggests that there seems to be enough diversity with existing system. Collie pointed out that it will require changing qualification procedures for what judges go in to quarter and semi final rounds. Roebuck pulled motion off the table for consideration.

Pober ask chair to explore the possibility of offering a cross examination period in the final round of extemp. Thompson appoints a committee consisting of Smith, Shah, Pober, Mayes, Schnoor, Collie—Chair, Collie This committee will report at the AFA-NIET meeting in April.

Northrup ask for clarification if online are allowed in extemp at a tournament does that make the tournament in-eligible for at-large qualification---Clarification is that the tournament would still count for at-large qualification

Smith asks for assistance to determine if we could implement GPA requirement as part of eligibility. No action was taken at this point.

Cronn-Mills, reporting from AFA committee,

Reminds this committee to consider what should be put in national archive. He encourages the IE community to participate in issues of assessment and to check out nationaldebateproject.org for more information. He reminds committee that this year AFA did not fill all slots for the conference, encourages submission for panels at next years NCA.

Schnoor reported that the joint award, NIET/NDT, has not been given in many years. He is looking into to getting the award revisited.

M/Smith S/Collie Move to adjourn—motion passed.

Respectfully submitted by Lee Mayfield, Secretary NIET