2003 Dalhousie University CUSID Spring General Meeting

Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate

General Meeting
Saturday March 15 and Sunday March 16, 2003
Dalhousie University

MINUTES
(Taken by Carissa Whiteman)

1. Call to Order

Present:
PRESENT:
TJ Adhihetty, President
Carissa Whiteman, Executive Director
Allan Ferriss, Treasurer
James Crossman, VP Western
Emma Lowman, VP Central
Gavin Magrath, VP Atlantic
Erik Eastaugh, Director of French Language Debate

Acadia University – Alexa Smith
Carleton University – an Michael Powell
Concordia University – Gaetano Cecere
Dalhousie University, Sodales – Megan de Graaf
Memorial University – Mary Ryan
McGill University – Konrad Koncewicz
McMaster University – Adam Barker
Queen’s University – Will Hutcheson
Royal Military College – Jessica Davis
St. Thomas University – Mike Collins
University College of Cape Breton – Patrick McNeil
University of Alberta – Helen McGraw
University of British Columbia – Michael Kotrly
University of Calgary – Michael James
University of Guelph – Heather Keyes
University of New Brunswick – Devin Keating
University of Ottawa – Erik Eastaugh
University of Saskatchewan – Tamara Harder
University of Toronto, Hart House – Ducan Plaunt
University of Toronto, St. Michael’s College – William Dun
University of Western Ontario – Jenn Knoll
University of Western Ontario, King’s College – Beth Hopkins

Marianopolis College – carried by McGill University
University of Waterloo – carried by Guelph University
University of Western Ontario, Huron College – carried by the University of Western Ontario
York University – carried by McMaster University

2. Roll Call and Voting Rights

3. Approval of the Agenda

-addition of 6j (Motions)
-motioned for approval motioned by Dalhousie University and seconded by Queen’s University.
PASSED

4. Approval of Minutes from Previous Meeting

-motioned for approval motioned Carleton University and seconded by University of Guelph.
PASSED

5. Oral and Written Reports

  • Treasurer (Allan Ferriss)
    -all finances are in order, and records have been updated
    -CUSID is still waiting for payment of membership fees as there is record of 19 members and 18 have paid
    -in terms of the budget, banking fees totaled $10.00 and there was no cost for office supplies.
    -costs incurred include the website domain renewal and trophies
    -the surplus will be obtained
  • VP Atlantic (Gavin Magrath)
    -there has been an increasing trend of more active Atlantic debaters.
    -will be making requests for teaching materials to provide to the region and for developing debating societies
  • VP West (James Crossman)
    -Hugill Cup was larger and more competitive than previous years
    -Pacific Cup at UBC was also quite successful
    the previously misplaced McGoun Cup was found at Stellenbosh World’s
    -will be continuing to work on revitalizing smaller clubs in the region
  • Director of French Language Debate (Erik Eastaugh)
    -was reappointed for the 2002-2003 term and has continued to promote French debating in CUSID
    -no host thus far for French Nationals for next year
    -in regards to expanding interest of French debating to non-central regions it will be encouraged, but the difficulties are recognized.

6. Motions

a. Amendment of ss.2, 3, 4, of the Constitution – Purpose of CUSID

2.     CUSID is a federation of Canadian post-secondary debating societies.
3.     The purpose of CUSID is to:

a. promote a forum for post-secondary students to exchange ideas through debate and public speech
b. establish standards in the areas of debate, public speech, individual and society conduct, tournament organization, judging, tournament eligibility, and other applicable topics,
c. provide collective resources to its members,
d. assist in the formation of post-secondary debating societies across Canada,
e. represent the interests of Canadian debaters internationally,
f. annually sanction: two National Championships, in both English and French, Regional Championships and Regional Novice Tournaments.

4.     The purpose of CUSID is founded on the goodwill of each member and their shared commitment to fulfill this purpose.

-motioned for approval motioned by McGill University and seconded by Queen’s University.
PASSED

b. Amendment to the Eligibility and Representation By-Law – Novice Status

ELIGIBILITY AND REPRESENTATION RULE

10. An individual shall be excluded from claiming novice status if the individual.

(a) has competed in the debating portion of one or more post-secondary level debating tournaments hosted by a CUSID member in any previous year, or
(b) has competed in the debating portion of one or more post-secondary level debating tournaments recognized by the American Parliamentary Debate Association, National Parliamentary Debate Association (United States), World Universities Debating Council, or any other national or international debating organization recognized by the President. Such participation shall have taken place in any previous year.

Furthermore, to be excluded from claiming novice status, the individual must have been a registered post-secondary student, or was representing a post-secondary institution or a CUSID member at the time of their participation in (a) or (b).

11. If there are questions as to eligibility or novice status, the President, in consultation with the rest of the Executive, shall determine the status of the individual. The method of appeal of the President’s ruling shall be a motion passed by the CUSID membership.

CONFIRMATION VOTE

1. To be eligible to attend CUSID-sanctioned tournaments and, as far as is enforceable, any other tournaments, a debater must be both a representative of one of CUSID’s full or provisional members and a registered student at an academic institution represented by that CUSID member. Furthermore, a registered student is either a full or part-time student in a program working towards a degree. A students’ official status is verified by a letter from the registrar of that institution.

-motioned for approval motioned by University of Ottawa and seconded by Queen’s University.
PASSED

c. Amendments to the Constitution and New By-Law – Position of the DoFLD

37. Any resolutions adopted at an informal meeting are advisory only, and are not binding on the membership, except the election of the Director of French Language Debate.

38. The Executive shall be composed of the President, Executive Director, Treasurer, Director of French Language Debate, and three Vice-Presidents, one from each of the three regions.

45. The Director of French Language Debate shall

a. promote and represent CUSID to CEGEPs and other post-secondary institutions with bilingual and francophone students;
b. relay the concerns of bilingual and francophone members to the Executive;
c. oversee the organization of the French National Championship, and aid in its promotion;
d. submit an interim report for each issue of the newsletter;
e. submit an annual report, preferably at the National Championship;
f. serve as Chair of the informal meeting at the French National Championship.

47. The Director of French Language Debate shall be elected each year at an informal meeting called for such a purpose at the French National Championships.

51. Impeachment proceedings must be commenced by way of a petition to the Executive. Where such proceedings concern the President, Executive Director, Treasurer, or the Director of French Language Debate such a petition requires signatures in the number of twenty-five percent of the full members. Where such proceedings concern a Vice-President, such a petition requires signatures in the number of twenty-five percent of the full members in the respective region. Only members in good standing can sign such a petition.

52. Upon commencement of the impeachment proceedings concerning the President, Executive Director, Treasurer, or the Director of French Language Debate, the Executive shall hold a general meeting, called for the purposes of impeachment, as soon as possible. The membership shall decide, at such a general meeting, whether a member of the Executive will be impeached. A resolution to impeach must pass by a two-thirds vote.

-motioned for approval and open vote motioned by University of Guelph and seconded by University of Ottawa.
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

d. Amendments to the Outcomes By-Law – Allowing Consensus Judging, moved by University of Alberta

OUTCOMES RULE

1. Adjudication may be by secret ballot or by consensus; the method of adjudication shall be made clear in the tournament invitation and briefings.

2. If adjudication is by secret ballot, the following rules shall apply:

a. In determining the outcome of a debate, each judge shall have one vote;
b. If a judge awards a higher point total to one team than to the other, the judge shall be deemed to have voted for that team. If a judge awards an equal point total to both teams, the judge shall be deemed to have voted for the Government;
c. If the result of the vote of the judges is a tie the Government shall be deemed the winner;
d. These rules do not apply to public or open rounds which combine the results of a panel of judges and a House vote.
e. Adjudicators may confer upon and discuss the debate with each other at the discretion of the tournament director(s).

3. If adjudication is by consensus, the following rules shall apply:

a. One adjudicator in each room shall be appointed Chair;
b. Adjudicators shall confer upon and discuss the debate with the Chair and other adjudicators;
c. The adjudication panel shall determine the winning team;
d. Each judge shall award speaker scores individually although the panel may confer on the matter;
e. The adjudication panel shall attempt to agree on the adjudication of the debate;
f. Should the adjudication panel be unable to arrive at a consensus, the decision of the chair shall prevail;
g. Adjudicators may register a dissenting opinion with the Tournament Director.

4. This by-law applied to CUSID-sanctioned tournaments and, as far as is enforceable, to all other tournaments.

-motioned for approval motioned by University of Guelph and seconded by University of Ottawa.
PASSED

e. New Bid Requirements By-Law

BID REQUIREMENTS BY-LAW

1. A bid for a CUSID-sanctioned tournament must include information regarding:

a. Debating Style & Format for all the days of the tournament including, but not limited to:
-type of resolutions being used (e.g. straight, squirrelable, or tight-linked),
-whether points of information will be permitted,
-whether there will be protected times during constructive and rebuttal speeches
b. Tabulations System for the all days of the tournament including, but not limited to:
-description of the computer program,
-method of pairings,-constraints being used in pairings,
-method of pull-ups in pairings,
-method of selecting government and opposition positions,
-method of ranking individual speakers and awarding speaker awards
c. Awards being presented to competitors.

2. A bid for a CUSID-sanctioned tournament should, wherever possible include information regarding:

a. The Debating Society including, but not limited to:
-the history of the society,
-current membership size,
-expected membership size during hosting of the tournament,
-previous tournament hosting experience of the society
b. Judging for all the days of the tournament including, but not limited to:
-description of local judging pool
c. Fees & Judge Requirements
d. School Cap
e. Entertainment including, but not limited to: Non-Drinking & Underage events
f. Accommodations
g. Awards being presented to competitors
h. Tentative Dates & Schedule
i. Possible or tentative Tournament Staff – specifically Tournament Director, Chief Adjudicator, Tabs Coordinator, Equity/Complaints Officers (different person for each position)

3.    A member successful in its bid to host a CUSID-sanctioned tournament is bound by the bid at the time of acceptance by the membership. Furthermore, commitments made at the meeting where the bid selection takes place will be considered part of the bid and therefore binds the successful bidder. Changes to or deviations from the bid require the approval of the Executive for the National and North American tournaments and the regional VPs for regional tournaments, three weeks prior to the tournament commencing.

4.    The Executive may stipulate further required bid information prior to the bid selection meeting.

-some discussion and amendments to the proposal
PASSED

**Adjournment for Saturday March 15, 2003 **

-motioned for approval motioned by University of Saskatchewan and seconded by Dalhousie University.
PASSED

**Continued Sunday March 16, 2003**

f. Confirming vote of previous amendment to the Eligibility and Representation By-Law

TERMINATION AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

8. In the situation where a CUSID member has not participated in any CUSID sanctioned tournament for four consecutive years or has not been a member in good standing of CUSID for four consecutive years, that member will be automatically removed from Schedule A of the CUSID Constitution and will lose all accorded privileges. It is highly encouraged that the dormant member reapplies to gain status as a CUSID member and subsequently become a member in good standing.

-motioned for approval motioned by University of Western Ontario, Huron College and seconded by McMaster University.
PASSED

g. Amendment to s. 17 of the Constitution – Change to Email Address

17. On submission of a list of executives, with email addresses and phone numbers, to the President and on payment of the membership fee for the year, full members will become members in good standing for the duration of that year.

h. Amendment to s. 55, 57 of the Constitution – Two Weeks Advance Notice of Texts of Amendments.

55. The membership has the power to enact, amend, or repeal by-laws, by majority vote.  This power can only be exercised at a general meeting. Such a meeting must have been called for the purpose of considering such an amendment and the full text of the amendment must be provided to the membership two weeks in advance of the meeting. Notice of the meeting shall be in accordance with section 62 of this Constitution (NOTICE OF A MEETING).

57. This constitution shall only be amended by a two-thirds vote at a general meeting.  Such a meeting must have been called for the purpose of considering such an amendment and the full text of the amendment must be provided to the membership two weeks in advance of the meeting. Notice of the meeting shall be in accordance with section 62 of this Constitution (NOTICE OF A MEETING).

-motioned to omnibus sections (6g, h,) motioned by McGill University and seconded by McMaster University.
ALL PASSED

i. Motion to Repeal DoFLD By-Law and Re-Number the Constitution Accordingly

MOTION TO REPEAL AND RE-NUMBER

Motion to repeal the Director of French Language Debate By-Law and re-number the Constitution accordingly after the inclusion of ss. 45, 47.

-motioned for approval motioned by Carleton University and seconded by McGill University.
PASSED

j. Motion to Regulate Surplus Spending moved by Western

Ratification of any spending proposal of the CUSID surplus requires a two-thirds majority at a general meeting.

-motioned for approval motioned by the University of Western Ontario and seconded by McMaster University
PASSED

7. New Business

  1. Selection of the 2004 North American Championships host
    -both Queen’s University and McGill University compete to bid.

Bid Outlines
Queens
-6 rounds with 1 random round
-100 team cap but no school restrictions
-judging with no n-rule
-incentives for alumni to help
-adjudicators exam (for both Canadian and American judges)
-multinational panels
-discussion judging
-underage friendly
-discounts for small schools and far schools

McGill
-judging at McGill is deep
-school has strong experience with APDA
-will work to improve relationship between CUSID and APDA
-fee is maximum $250 CDN but will endeavor to fundraise and reduce the price
-entertainment – Molson room, Thursday and Friday night social events
-hosting NorthAms will help McGill in pursuing the larger bid of World’s in 2 years

Questions
-judges discounts to McGill
-timing for judges briefing to Queen’s
-consensus judging
-legitimacy of link between NorthAms next year and Worlds later to McGill

-vote:
Queens – 15
McGill – 5
2004 North American Championships will be hosted by Queen’s University

b. Selection of the 2004 National Championship host

McGill
-Winter Carnival will still happen
-no split rebuttal but possible PMRE
-DCAs from each region
-entertainment – perhaps not the Molson room but an alternate venue with a full open bar
-can’t commit to decent price
-discounts (billeting) to those coming far
-same judging requirement as proposed in NorthAms bid (n/2 rounded down)

-vote:
Favour – 19
Against – 1
2004 National Championships will be hosted by McGill University

8. Elections

  1. President
    -both Adam Barker (McMaster University) and Konrad Koncewicz (McGill University) compete.

vote:
Adam Barker – 9
Konrad Koncewicz – 11
Konrad Koncewicz will serve as CUSID’s President for 2003-2004

b. Executive Director
Wayne Chu (Carleton University) will serve as CUSID’s Executive Director for 2003-2004

c. Treasurer
Gaurav Toshniwal (McGill University) will serve as CUSID’s Treasurer for 2003-2004

d. Confirming the Director of French Language Debate
Guy Philippe Allen Bouchard (McGill University) will serve as CUSID’s Director of French Language Debate for 2003-2004

9.    Adjournment

NOTE:  McMaster University will hold the CENTRAL CUSID regional tournament and University College of Cape Breton will hold the ATLANTIC CUSID regional tournament as decided after Adjournment.

2002-2003 President's Final Report: TJ (Tajesh) Adhihetty

Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate

General Meeting
Saturday March 15 and Sunday March 16, 2003
Dalhousie University

President, 2002-2003
Written Report
TJ (Tajesh) Adhihetty

Summary of Activities

1. Membership Lists and Updating Information – CUSID’s Online Filing Cabinet

This year we have attempted to collect the information which is required of full members (those in Schedule A) to become members in good standing. These requirements, as stipulated in section 17 of the Constitution, include the list of club executive members, their email addresses, and telephone numbers. This information is needed because:

1) it is a Constitutional condition of membership, but more importantly

2) the Executive need to be in contact with club executives,

3) emergencies (e.g. medical problems) do arise at tournaments and contact information must be readily available at any given location,

4) future club executives may need to get a hold of past executive members and such information is vital to that search.

There have been a number of cases where past club executives were needed for the resolution of a current issue. Sometimes clubs have remained dormant for years and are being resurrected, and in other cases old financial problems need to be rectified. All executive lists that have been provided to us are stored in the Executive forum of CUSIDnet. This forum is open only to Executive members so privacy concerns are mitigated, but access is now available wherever an internet connection exists.

The Executive forum serves as an excellent online filing cabinet for CUSID. Since we have Executive members spread throughout the country, such universal access is necessary. Furthermore, our organization depends on institutional memory. This new use of the Executive forum will be an excellent and necessary archive for future years.

2. To Be Bilingual or Not To Be

Based on the comments of individual debaters and input to the Mandate Committee, the question of whether CUSID should remain bilingual was raised in the first term. Arguments in favour of a unilingual organization included the poor job undertaken by CUSID thus far regarding French debating, the fact that resources could be better spent elsewhere and most international competitions are in English. It was also suggested that a separate national French debating organization would be more beneficial for the establishment and growth of that format.

At the November CUSID General Meeting, the membership voted in favour of the following resolution:

Be it resolved that the Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate / Societe Universitaire Canadienne pour le Debat Intercolleigal remain a bilingual student organization.

The membership felt that if French debating was left on its own that it would not survive or at the very least would wither further away. As well, members cited the promotion of French public speaking at the Queen’s Chancellor’s Cup. It was argued that more could be done to promote French debating in CUSID.

3. Ombudsperson & Equity/Complaint Officers

Although the deadline for Ombudsperson applications was extended, no one applied for the position. I decided that the most prudent course of action would be to insure that all CUSID sanctioned tournaments had at least one Equity/Complaints Officer. Tournament directors were very cooperative in making sure the position was filed by qualified members of their club. Furthermore, invitational tournaments began establishing such positions. Credit must be given to Zara Lam, past Vice-President Central, for this initiative.

Future calls for applications should stress that the Ombudsperson must not only have experience dealing with official complaints management, but also have a vision for the position. It is a fledgling role in CUSID which needs greater promotion and clarification. The positions of the regional ombudspersons should be eliminated or such responsibilities could be incorporated into the duties of the regional Vice-Presidents. A number of senior debaters and Executive members have expressed their opinion that the regional ombudspersons are not necessary and were not utilized during their tenure in previous years. For investigative purposes, regional Vice-Presidents could assist the National Ombudsperson. If the regional Vice-President is under investigation, then the President of a CUSID member is the next alternative choice.

4. CUSID Surplus

The CUSID surplus has been an ongoing problem. This Executive entered our term without knowledge of the whereabouts of the bank account, the amount within the account, or the contact information for Sarah Mahoney, past CUSID Treasurer.

Sarah Mahoney has been tracked down with the assistance of Megan de Graaf of Dalhousie University. Sarah was the CUSID Treasurer in 1998/1999. Apparently the transfer of signing authority from her executive team to the next was not appropriately completed. As such, the account remained dormant in a Wolfville bank account. Sarah is currently residing in Toronto. She has been helpful in passing on old account information to Allan Ferriss, the current Treasurer. Unfortunately, the account itself is proving to be a problem. I have been informed that Mike Shore and Ranjan Agarwal (and Sarah) have signed the necessary documentation to close the account and issue a cheque in the name of CUSID. We were under the assumption that the “cheque was in the mail”, but it has not come through as of yet. As it stands, we are again working with Sarah to establish contact with the bank.

5. British Parliamentary vs. Canadian Parliamentary

A question was raised on CUSIDnet whether CUSID should switch to British Parliamentary-style (BP) debating, or at the very least whether first term tournaments should be BP to help prepare teams for the World Championships in December/January. After a lengthy CUSIDnet discussion, the Regional Vice-Presidents were instructed to consult with the schools within their respective region. The schools were asked to express their level of interest in switching over to BP for one trial year. Emphasis was given to schools hosting first term tournaments. The Executive appreciated that most schools did not want to commit future club executives to hosting a BP tournament, and therefore we only gauged a level of interest. This input was necessary if CUSID wanted to make a consolidated effort to adopt a new style. If a majority of schools desired the change, the Executive would have to consider such things as the scheduling of more training sessions (in BP) at first term tournaments and possible constitutional amendments.

The majority of comments provided to the Vice-Presidents were either in opposition to BP or were weak signs of support. A number of schools did not feel that BP would enhance debating in Canada. Smaller clubs (i.e. small number of debaters in the club) were worried that they would not have the adequate training to fully switch styles and that practice rounds would be difficult because of their small population. A couple of schools did express interest in switching over their first term tournament.

A consolidated switch to BP is not currently viable. Clubs interested in switching their tournament to BP have been encouraged to do so by individual debaters, but the CUSID membership has clearly indicated that they do not want to attempt a trial year at this time.

6. Mandate Committee

First, thank you to all the club executives that provided input to the Mandate Committee. Your comments provided great insight as to how people viewed CUSID and what it wanted to become. Second, thank you to the members of the Mandate Committee for their feedback. The members included the Executive as well as Megan de Graaf of Dalhousie University and Tamara Harder of the University of Saskatchewan.

The goal of the committee was to evaluate the purpose of CUSID. The organization has grown substantially from its constitutional roots of 1990. Issues such as equity and the creation of the ombudsperson have raised questions regarding the overall governance of CUSID. Should it become a governing body or should it remain a loose collection of clubs? Based on the input provided by CUSID members, the results of the committee are the proposed amendments to sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Constitution. The consensus amongst CUSID members was that the association should not become an over-arching governing body. It should be one where clubs maintain their autonomy, but come together to agree upon policy that would strengthen the level of competitive post-secondary debating in Canada. Therefore, a federation model of organization and governance was the most viable.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

2. CUSID is a federation of Canadian post-secondary debating societies.

3. The purpose of CUSID is to:

a. promote a forum for post-secondary students to exchange ideas through debate and public speech,
b. establish standards in the areas of debate, public speech, individual and society conduct, tournament organization, judging, tournament eligibility, and other applicable topics,
c. provide collective resources to its members,
d. assist in the formation of post-secondary debating societies across Canada,
e. represent the interests of Canadian debaters internationally,
f. annually sanction: two National Championships, in both English and French, Regional Championships and Regional Novice Tournaments.

4. The purpose of CUSID is founded on the goodwill of each member and their shared commitment to fulfill this purpose.

7. Expansion

This year we were happy to welcome back the University of Manitoba as well as provide provisional membership status to Simon Fraser University and Tyndale College.

8. North American Championships (NorAms) Negotiations

The negotiations regarding the details of the tournament were difficult, especially regarding the fees. However a number of valuable lessons can be learned from this experience (see Recommendations).

Summary of Facts

The debate club at John Hopkins University (JHD) was made aware of the requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on September 20th, 2002 via email. The MoU stipulates that the two national Presidents must approve a number of items including the fee. Information regarding the tournament fee was specifically requested and a link to the MoU on the CUSID website was provided in the September 20th email. It should be noted that a prior message was sent to JHD over the summer, but the MoU was not available in electronic format at that time. However, the question of the tournament fee was asked in that message. Unfortunately, email records only start as of September 20th. After the message of September 20th, eight other email messages were sent to various executive members at JHD and the American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA). The fee ($250 USD per team) was communicated to us on December 5th, 2002.

Summary of Events

The negotiations regarding the fee and the budget were not successful. Due to the commencement of the winter examination period, JHD was not able to negotiate as effectively as was needed in this situation. Although a number of fee models were discussed between Greg Jennings (APDA President) and myself via emails and telephone conversations, none of them were adopted by JHD. To their credit, JHD did provide discounts for teams that opted to be billeted. This option was not in their original announcement, but was negotiated on a school by school basis. Greg and I attempted to ensure that all schools received equal and fair treatment. JHD also implemented a fee for judges after I raised concerns that judges were being hosted at the hotel for free. Furthermore, a number of concerns which were raised regarding their budget and unusual expenditures were not addressed by JHD. They had promised us a response to our concerns by January 12th, 2003. JHD was very accommodating in regards to tabulation regulations and debating guidelines. They were efficient in getting those sorted out.

From email and telephone conversations that I had regarding the outcome of the tournament, I would say that JHD ran a solid tournament. There were no outstanding problems with judging or tabulations. My thanks goes to Rory McKeown of Hart House (University of Toronto) who was the Deputy Chief Adjudicator for Canada. Furthermore, thank you to Greg Jennings and Kate Meyers (APDA Vice-President Operations) for their assistance, patience, fairness, and genuine commitment to their duties.

9. World Universities Debating Council (WUDC)

Selection of Worlds 2005 Host

The University of Zagreb in Croatia won the bid over Bristol University of England. Prior to the bid selection meeting, I spoke with both organizing committees via email and in person at the tournament. I voted for Bristol University because I had greater confidence in their judging pool, organizational abilities, and it would be less expensive to fly to Britain versus Croatia. Bristol also guaranteed that one Deputy Chief Adjudicator (DCA) would come from North America. Although having voted for Bristol, I am still confident in Croatia’s abilities to host Worlds. Their bid was impressive. During the question and answer period, Iva Kutle (ivakutle@yahoo.com), the bid organizer and expected Chief Adjudicator of Zagreb 2005, indicated that one of the DCAs would come from North America. Speaking to her after the meeting, she was receptive of having CUSID (along with the Americans) assist in the selection of that person.

Motion regarding 9th Round Resolution

In round 9 the resolution was: This House believes that Sharon should stand beside Milosevic. The Israeli delegation took great offence to this and brought forth a motion at the WUDC meeting requesting the organizers apologize for the resolution. They were upset for a number of reasons; comparison of the Israeli Prime Minister to a known war criminal and the treatment of Israeli debaters and judges during the round. The Israeli delegate informed us that the comments of certain Israeli judges were dismissed in their panels because they were told they were biased. Israeli teams also had to “suffer” through rounds where the actions of Sharon were compared to the Nazi genocide. After much heated debate, the WUDC passed a motion which indicated that the wording of the resolution was ill-chosen. It should be noted that the Israelis would have accepted a 9th round resolution which called for the indictment of Sharon before a war crimes tribunal.

Qualifications of Ravi Viswanathan, Chief Adjudicator for Singapore 2004

Questions were raised as to the qualifications of Ravi and whether he would be up to the challenge of being Chief Adjudicator (CA). The controversy arose after Amanda Kiemas, the original CA, had to resign due to employment commitments. Ravi and Namrata Verma, Convenor for Singagore 2004, adequately defended their choice to select a new CA from within their club as opposed to getting a well-known experienced debater.

Delays during the Tournament

Kevin Burden, Convenor of Stellenbosch 2004, provided a sincere and genuine apology for the extreme delays during the tournament. Round 6 on day two of the tournament had to be cancelled because of the delays. The alternative plan was to run rounds 6, 7, and 8 on day three, and then run round 9 on January 2nd. In the end, day three comprised all four remaining rounds. Kevin also accepted responsibility for choosing the method of pairings that had caused a great deal of problems.

Recommendations

1. Director of Development and Resources
creation of a new elected executive position to:

1)promote CUSID and concentrate on expanding post-secondary debating in Canada; it would be the responsibility of that individual to contact non-CUSID member schools and encourage the development of debating societies

2)maintain a resource bank of debating and public speaking guides for new and current clubs; debating guides do exist, but they have to be collected, sorted, and constantly updated; resources may also include guides on club governance, finances, fundraising, etc.

2. CUSID’s Online Filing Cabinet
-maintain the records and archive confidential information in the Executive Forum or another specific Online Executive Filing Cabinet
-produce hardcopies of all documents listed in the Filing Cabinet; that set of documents should be passed on through successive Executive Directors

3. Memorandum of Understanding between CUSID & APDA
-amend to specify the negotiation process; deadlines should be established for the host school to provide information to the two national Presidents
-method of pairings, pairing constraints, ranking of judges should be agreed upon earlier
-computer tabs program should be agreed upon; better yet, CUSID and APDA should explore the possibility of jointly sponsoring a tabulations program
-judges’ briefing should be mandatory and be conducted by both the CA and the DCA

4. Equity/Complaints Officers
-job description should be clarified and articulated; implementing a by-law encompassing their duties would be beneficial
-requiring a male and female equity officer at every CUSID sanctioned tournament; recommending that such positions be established at invitational tournaments

5. World Universities Debating Council
-negotiating with the organizers of Zagreb for a North American DCA; lobbying for that person to be a Canadian
-preparing a CUSID school for a 2006 or 2007 bid for Worlds

6. Constitution
-needs to be further updated; previous approved amendments were not adopted into the current online version;
constant updating of the Constitution was required over the past year as previous Executive members recalled motions that were passed in previous years (proof of such passage is always required or a confirmation vote must taken at a General Meeting)

2002-2003 President’s Final Report: TJ (Tajesh) Adhihetty

Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate

General Meeting
Saturday March 15 and Sunday March 16, 2003
Dalhousie University

President, 2002-2003
Written Report
TJ (Tajesh) Adhihetty

Summary of Activities

1. Membership Lists and Updating Information – CUSID’s Online Filing Cabinet

This year we have attempted to collect the information which is required of full members (those in Schedule A) to become members in good standing. These requirements, as stipulated in section 17 of the Constitution, include the list of club executive members, their email addresses, and telephone numbers. This information is needed because:

1) it is a Constitutional condition of membership, but more importantly

2) the Executive need to be in contact with club executives,

3) emergencies (e.g. medical problems) do arise at tournaments and contact information must be readily available at any given location,

4) future club executives may need to get a hold of past executive members and such information is vital to that search.

There have been a number of cases where past club executives were needed for the resolution of a current issue. Sometimes clubs have remained dormant for years and are being resurrected, and in other cases old financial problems need to be rectified. All executive lists that have been provided to us are stored in the Executive forum of CUSIDnet. This forum is open only to Executive members so privacy concerns are mitigated, but access is now available wherever an internet connection exists.

The Executive forum serves as an excellent online filing cabinet for CUSID. Since we have Executive members spread throughout the country, such universal access is necessary. Furthermore, our organization depends on institutional memory. This new use of the Executive forum will be an excellent and necessary archive for future years.

2. To Be Bilingual or Not To Be

Based on the comments of individual debaters and input to the Mandate Committee, the question of whether CUSID should remain bilingual was raised in the first term. Arguments in favour of a unilingual organization included the poor job undertaken by CUSID thus far regarding French debating, the fact that resources could be better spent elsewhere and most international competitions are in English. It was also suggested that a separate national French debating organization would be more beneficial for the establishment and growth of that format.

At the November CUSID General Meeting, the membership voted in favour of the following resolution:

Be it resolved that the Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate / Societe Universitaire Canadienne pour le Debat Intercolleigal remain a bilingual student organization.

The membership felt that if French debating was left on its own that it would not survive or at the very least would wither further away. As well, members cited the promotion of French public speaking at the Queen’s Chancellor’s Cup. It was argued that more could be done to promote French debating in CUSID.

3. Ombudsperson & Equity/Complaint Officers

Although the deadline for Ombudsperson applications was extended, no one applied for the position. I decided that the most prudent course of action would be to insure that all CUSID sanctioned tournaments had at least one Equity/Complaints Officer. Tournament directors were very cooperative in making sure the position was filed by qualified members of their club. Furthermore, invitational tournaments began establishing such positions. Credit must be given to Zara Lam, past Vice-President Central, for this initiative.

Future calls for applications should stress that the Ombudsperson must not only have experience dealing with official complaints management, but also have a vision for the position. It is a fledgling role in CUSID which needs greater promotion and clarification. The positions of the regional ombudspersons should be eliminated or such responsibilities could be incorporated into the duties of the regional Vice-Presidents. A number of senior debaters and Executive members have expressed their opinion that the regional ombudspersons are not necessary and were not utilized during their tenure in previous years. For investigative purposes, regional Vice-Presidents could assist the National Ombudsperson. If the regional Vice-President is under investigation, then the President of a CUSID member is the next alternative choice.

4. CUSID Surplus

The CUSID surplus has been an ongoing problem. This Executive entered our term without knowledge of the whereabouts of the bank account, the amount within the account, or the contact information for Sarah Mahoney, past CUSID Treasurer.

Sarah Mahoney has been tracked down with the assistance of Megan de Graaf of Dalhousie University. Sarah was the CUSID Treasurer in 1998/1999. Apparently the transfer of signing authority from her executive team to the next was not appropriately completed. As such, the account remained dormant in a Wolfville bank account. Sarah is currently residing in Toronto. She has been helpful in passing on old account information to Allan Ferriss, the current Treasurer. Unfortunately, the account itself is proving to be a problem. I have been informed that Mike Shore and Ranjan Agarwal (and Sarah) have signed the necessary documentation to close the account and issue a cheque in the name of CUSID. We were under the assumption that the “cheque was in the mail”, but it has not come through as of yet. As it stands, we are again working with Sarah to establish contact with the bank.

5. British Parliamentary vs. Canadian Parliamentary

A question was raised on CUSIDnet whether CUSID should switch to British Parliamentary-style (BP) debating, or at the very least whether first term tournaments should be BP to help prepare teams for the World Championships in December/January. After a lengthy CUSIDnet discussion, the Regional Vice-Presidents were instructed to consult with the schools within their respective region. The schools were asked to express their level of interest in switching over to BP for one trial year. Emphasis was given to schools hosting first term tournaments. The Executive appreciated that most schools did not want to commit future club executives to hosting a BP tournament, and therefore we only gauged a level of interest. This input was necessary if CUSID wanted to make a consolidated effort to adopt a new style. If a majority of schools desired the change, the Executive would have to consider such things as the scheduling of more training sessions (in BP) at first term tournaments and possible constitutional amendments.

The majority of comments provided to the Vice-Presidents were either in opposition to BP or were weak signs of support. A number of schools did not feel that BP would enhance debating in Canada. Smaller clubs (i.e. small number of debaters in the club) were worried that they would not have the adequate training to fully switch styles and that practice rounds would be difficult because of their small population. A couple of schools did express interest in switching over their first term tournament.

A consolidated switch to BP is not currently viable. Clubs interested in switching their tournament to BP have been encouraged to do so by individual debaters, but the CUSID membership has clearly indicated that they do not want to attempt a trial year at this time.

6. Mandate Committee

First, thank you to all the club executives that provided input to the Mandate Committee. Your comments provided great insight as to how people viewed CUSID and what it wanted to become. Second, thank you to the members of the Mandate Committee for their feedback. The members included the Executive as well as Megan de Graaf of Dalhousie University and Tamara Harder of the University of Saskatchewan.

The goal of the committee was to evaluate the purpose of CUSID. The organization has grown substantially from its constitutional roots of 1990. Issues such as equity and the creation of the ombudsperson have raised questions regarding the overall governance of CUSID. Should it become a governing body or should it remain a loose collection of clubs? Based on the input provided by CUSID members, the results of the committee are the proposed amendments to sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Constitution. The consensus amongst CUSID members was that the association should not become an over-arching governing body. It should be one where clubs maintain their autonomy, but come together to agree upon policy that would strengthen the level of competitive post-secondary debating in Canada. Therefore, a federation model of organization and governance was the most viable.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

2. CUSID is a federation of Canadian post-secondary debating societies.

3. The purpose of CUSID is to:

a. promote a forum for post-secondary students to exchange ideas through debate and public speech,
b. establish standards in the areas of debate, public speech, individual and society conduct, tournament organization, judging, tournament eligibility, and other applicable topics,
c. provide collective resources to its members,
d. assist in the formation of post-secondary debating societies across Canada,
e. represent the interests of Canadian debaters internationally,
f. annually sanction: two National Championships, in both English and French, Regional Championships and Regional Novice Tournaments.

4. The purpose of CUSID is founded on the goodwill of each member and their shared commitment to fulfill this purpose.

7. Expansion

This year we were happy to welcome back the University of Manitoba as well as provide provisional membership status to Simon Fraser University and Tyndale College.

8. North American Championships (NorAms) Negotiations

The negotiations regarding the details of the tournament were difficult, especially regarding the fees. However a number of valuable lessons can be learned from this experience (see Recommendations).

Summary of Facts

The debate club at John Hopkins University (JHD) was made aware of the requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on September 20th, 2002 via email. The MoU stipulates that the two national Presidents must approve a number of items including the fee. Information regarding the tournament fee was specifically requested and a link to the MoU on the CUSID website was provided in the September 20th email. It should be noted that a prior message was sent to JHD over the summer, but the MoU was not available in electronic format at that time. However, the question of the tournament fee was asked in that message. Unfortunately, email records only start as of September 20th. After the message of September 20th, eight other email messages were sent to various executive members at JHD and the American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA). The fee ($250 USD per team) was communicated to us on December 5th, 2002.

Summary of Events

The negotiations regarding the fee and the budget were not successful. Due to the commencement of the winter examination period, JHD was not able to negotiate as effectively as was needed in this situation. Although a number of fee models were discussed between Greg Jennings (APDA President) and myself via emails and telephone conversations, none of them were adopted by JHD. To their credit, JHD did provide discounts for teams that opted to be billeted. This option was not in their original announcement, but was negotiated on a school by school basis. Greg and I attempted to ensure that all schools received equal and fair treatment. JHD also implemented a fee for judges after I raised concerns that judges were being hosted at the hotel for free. Furthermore, a number of concerns which were raised regarding their budget and unusual expenditures were not addressed by JHD. They had promised us a response to our concerns by January 12th, 2003. JHD was very accommodating in regards to tabulation regulations and debating guidelines. They were efficient in getting those sorted out.

From email and telephone conversations that I had regarding the outcome of the tournament, I would say that JHD ran a solid tournament. There were no outstanding problems with judging or tabulations. My thanks goes to Rory McKeown of Hart House (University of Toronto) who was the Deputy Chief Adjudicator for Canada. Furthermore, thank you to Greg Jennings and Kate Meyers (APDA Vice-President Operations) for their assistance, patience, fairness, and genuine commitment to their duties.

9. World Universities Debating Council (WUDC)

Selection of Worlds 2005 Host

The University of Zagreb in Croatia won the bid over Bristol University of England. Prior to the bid selection meeting, I spoke with both organizing committees via email and in person at the tournament. I voted for Bristol University because I had greater confidence in their judging pool, organizational abilities, and it would be less expensive to fly to Britain versus Croatia. Bristol also guaranteed that one Deputy Chief Adjudicator (DCA) would come from North America. Although having voted for Bristol, I am still confident in Croatia’s abilities to host Worlds. Their bid was impressive. During the question and answer period, Iva Kutle (ivakutle@yahoo.com), the bid organizer and expected Chief Adjudicator of Zagreb 2005, indicated that one of the DCAs would come from North America. Speaking to her after the meeting, she was receptive of having CUSID (along with the Americans) assist in the selection of that person.

Motion regarding 9th Round Resolution

In round 9 the resolution was: This House believes that Sharon should stand beside Milosevic. The Israeli delegation took great offence to this and brought forth a motion at the WUDC meeting requesting the organizers apologize for the resolution. They were upset for a number of reasons; comparison of the Israeli Prime Minister to a known war criminal and the treatment of Israeli debaters and judges during the round. The Israeli delegate informed us that the comments of certain Israeli judges were dismissed in their panels because they were told they were biased. Israeli teams also had to “suffer” through rounds where the actions of Sharon were compared to the Nazi genocide. After much heated debate, the WUDC passed a motion which indicated that the wording of the resolution was ill-chosen. It should be noted that the Israelis would have accepted a 9th round resolution which called for the indictment of Sharon before a war crimes tribunal.

Qualifications of Ravi Viswanathan, Chief Adjudicator for Singapore 2004

Questions were raised as to the qualifications of Ravi and whether he would be up to the challenge of being Chief Adjudicator (CA). The controversy arose after Amanda Kiemas, the original CA, had to resign due to employment commitments. Ravi and Namrata Verma, Convenor for Singagore 2004, adequately defended their choice to select a new CA from within their club as opposed to getting a well-known experienced debater.

Delays during the Tournament

Kevin Burden, Convenor of Stellenbosch 2004, provided a sincere and genuine apology for the extreme delays during the tournament. Round 6 on day two of the tournament had to be cancelled because of the delays. The alternative plan was to run rounds 6, 7, and 8 on day three, and then run round 9 on January 2nd. In the end, day three comprised all four remaining rounds. Kevin also accepted responsibility for choosing the method of pairings that had caused a great deal of problems.

Recommendations

1. Director of Development and Resources
creation of a new elected executive position to:

1)promote CUSID and concentrate on expanding post-secondary debating in Canada; it would be the responsibility of that individual to contact non-CUSID member schools and encourage the development of debating societies

2)maintain a resource bank of debating and public speaking guides for new and current clubs; debating guides do exist, but they have to be collected, sorted, and constantly updated; resources may also include guides on club governance, finances, fundraising, etc.

2. CUSID’s Online Filing Cabinet
-maintain the records and archive confidential information in the Executive Forum or another specific Online Executive Filing Cabinet
-produce hardcopies of all documents listed in the Filing Cabinet; that set of documents should be passed on through successive Executive Directors

3. Memorandum of Understanding between CUSID & APDA
-amend to specify the negotiation process; deadlines should be established for the host school to provide information to the two national Presidents
-method of pairings, pairing constraints, ranking of judges should be agreed upon earlier
-computer tabs program should be agreed upon; better yet, CUSID and APDA should explore the possibility of jointly sponsoring a tabulations program
-judges’ briefing should be mandatory and be conducted by both the CA and the DCA

4. Equity/Complaints Officers
-job description should be clarified and articulated; implementing a by-law encompassing their duties would be beneficial
-requiring a male and female equity officer at every CUSID sanctioned tournament; recommending that such positions be established at invitational tournaments

5. World Universities Debating Council
-negotiating with the organizers of Zagreb for a North American DCA; lobbying for that person to be a Canadian
-preparing a CUSID school for a 2006 or 2007 bid for Worlds

6. Constitution
-needs to be further updated; previous approved amendments were not adopted into the current online version;
constant updating of the Constitution was required over the past year as previous Executive members recalled motions that were passed in previous years (proof of such passage is always required or a confirmation vote must taken at a General Meeting)

2002-2003 VP Central's Midterm Report: Emma Lowman

Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate

General Meeting
Saturday March 15 and Sunday March 16, 2003
Dalhousie University

VP Central, 2002-2003
Written Report
Emma Lowman

Recap of Events

First Term

For those outside of the Central Region, the following tournaments occurred from September to December, 2002. Novice at Western went off in typical fine fashion. Hart House and Queens were also great successes. World Prep was again hosted by Ottawa, and again was the only British Parliamentary style tournament in Central Canada. This was followed up by the Central Championship at Carlton University. A special congratulations should be given to Rory McKeowen, who upon winning the Leger Cup, completed the hat trick of Regional, National and North American Championship titles.

Second Term

So far, the Central Tournaments this term have been fantastic. McGill Winter Carnival was, as expected, a fantastic time. The break rounds were all wildly entertaining, the parties were smashing, and the overall quality and organization top notch. McGill, as always, deserves great thanks and applause for their efforts. Western was an excellent event with a very high level of competition; despite what many think, a sixteen team tournament can be a fantastic time, as Western was. It was also a great chance to get to know fellow debaters. Some people seemed dismissive of the fact that there were few teams present; I personally felt, and others who were there agreed, that it was a good counterpoint to Winter Carnival, a nice low stress experience that still yielded great debate. York Pro-Am was again an interesting and educational tournament, and it seems that the novices really appreciated the experience (I certainly did). The Break rounds were excellent and proved very informative and entertaining for everyone watching (including proud parents of debaters). French Nationals took place at the beginning of this month, and by all accounts was an excellent and anglo-friendly affair. Thanks to RMC for all their work making the only French language tournament in Central Region a success.

Initiatives Undertaken:

Judging

I would like to thank all the club presidents and CUSID Central members for their comments to date on this issue. It is my hope that with continued dialogue on possible changes to judging can continue. If I have learned anything in the past four months, it is that there appears to be, in the Central region, a consensus that judging is a problem area and needs to be addressed.

Some problems, concerns and ideas that have been raised thus far include standardized scoring ranges, consensus judging, bias in judging (favouritism towards certain schools or people based on reputation, or bias against certain schools for various reasons) and establishing a deeper judging pool for all schools and tournaments. Right now, I still see judging as a problem area for CUSID and believe that it both can and should be improved. I would like to hear your thoughts on this and based on what I get back, we can decide how to proceed and tackle this issue.

As you are all surely aware, there have been discussions about consensus judging and standardized ballots on CUSIDnet. However, both of these discussions have been either largely in the context of CUSID West or sparked by judging experimentation in CUSID West. I hope to be able to work with the Vice Presidents from both East and West over the summer to discuss their experiences and attempt to find a solution that can work in Central and that might also be acceptable to those regions as well.

Format Modifications (PMRE & Split Rebuttal; BP Style)

The PMRE was brought in as an option at McGill along with the opposition split rebuttal (thanks to McGill for providing a statistical breakdown of how it affected the rounds). There was, as yet, no conclusive evidence that it wildly affected the government win-loss ratio. However, I would like to hear from each individual club what they thought of it. There has been an extensive discussion on the subject on CUSIDnet which I encourage you to read (some good points were made), but personal feelings and club positions on the matter are what I believe is most important. Did you like it? Would you introduce it as an option at CUSID sanctioned tournaments? How about a full-scale switch? Tell me what you think. Also on the issue of format, there was lots of discussion recently about British Parliamentary style. First, I’d like to thank everyone for their input, which was often detailed and insightful. The general results are that only one school would actually be in favour of switching an entire term to BP style. Of all schools holding tournaments first term next year or bidding for title tournaments, none are planning on switching to BP. One of the most interesting commentaries I heard in the course of this discussion was that regarding the low turnout at Ottawa’s Father Guindon Cup, the already established BP tournament in Central. It has been suggested that this is indicative of a certain lack of interest; if more schools supported the Father Guindon Cup, there might be more demand for other BP tournaments, but right now, there is only just enough interest to fill one BP tournament. Of course, schools holding invitational tournaments can always choose to hold another BP style tournament, and should a club not already hosting a tournament choose to do so, there would obviously be people more than happy to attend.

Overall Condition of Region:

Upcoming

Guelph Novice is March 28-30, and if last year was any indication, is one of the best bang-for-your-buck tournaments, a great way for novices to close out the year, and a great chance for experienced people to get together to conduct last minute business before the summer (if by business, you mean socializing and carousing). That will officially end this year of CUSID tournaments. Waterloo is re-establishing their summer tournament to kick of the 2003-2004 year, and 13 rounds in 24 hours sounds almost too good to be true (that’s the equivalent of two and a half tournaments, all in one day). If you survive, it’ll probably be the time of your life.

Trent

As posted on CUSIDnet, as of the beginning of March, I had not heard anything from Trent or Shingi since early in the year. Despite more than a few attempts to contact them, we had to assume that Trent Dionysis would not be held this year. To this date nothing has yet been heard and unless another member of CUSID knows otherwise, we can only assume that debating at Trent has collapsed for this year at least, though I will continue to try to establish contact with Trent.

Other Clubs

This year has seen some participation from members such as Waterloo, Laurier and McMaster which were in the past few years considered in danger of disappearing. I believe we must continue to engage and promote the participation of the members. Other member schools are all, to the best of my knowledge, healthy and functioning as normal.

I have been disappointed that, to some extent, there has been some reticence among some organizations to make contact with the Vice President when they have had problems or I have contacted them for input. In my election platform I promised communication, but I hope that this promise can actually be carried out, and that needs the participation of everyone involved.

Overall, the past year has been a good one for Central Region and, I believe, CUSID as a whole. We have many issues to address but I also believe we have the resources to properly address them. With candidates from the Central Region standing for election to CUSID executive positions, and very interesting and competitive bids being introduced for our regional championship and also for the North American Championships, next year is looking very promising indeed. Here is hoping that everyone has a great rest of the tournament.

2002-2003 VP Central’s Midterm Report: Emma Lowman

Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate

General Meeting
Saturday March 15 and Sunday March 16, 2003
Dalhousie University

VP Central, 2002-2003
Written Report
Emma Lowman

Recap of Events

First Term

For those outside of the Central Region, the following tournaments occurred from September to December, 2002. Novice at Western went off in typical fine fashion. Hart House and Queens were also great successes. World Prep was again hosted by Ottawa, and again was the only British Parliamentary style tournament in Central Canada. This was followed up by the Central Championship at Carlton University. A special congratulations should be given to Rory McKeowen, who upon winning the Leger Cup, completed the hat trick of Regional, National and North American Championship titles.

Second Term

So far, the Central Tournaments this term have been fantastic. McGill Winter Carnival was, as expected, a fantastic time. The break rounds were all wildly entertaining, the parties were smashing, and the overall quality and organization top notch. McGill, as always, deserves great thanks and applause for their efforts. Western was an excellent event with a very high level of competition; despite what many think, a sixteen team tournament can be a fantastic time, as Western was. It was also a great chance to get to know fellow debaters. Some people seemed dismissive of the fact that there were few teams present; I personally felt, and others who were there agreed, that it was a good counterpoint to Winter Carnival, a nice low stress experience that still yielded great debate. York Pro-Am was again an interesting and educational tournament, and it seems that the novices really appreciated the experience (I certainly did). The Break rounds were excellent and proved very informative and entertaining for everyone watching (including proud parents of debaters). French Nationals took place at the beginning of this month, and by all accounts was an excellent and anglo-friendly affair. Thanks to RMC for all their work making the only French language tournament in Central Region a success.

Initiatives Undertaken:

Judging

I would like to thank all the club presidents and CUSID Central members for their comments to date on this issue. It is my hope that with continued dialogue on possible changes to judging can continue. If I have learned anything in the past four months, it is that there appears to be, in the Central region, a consensus that judging is a problem area and needs to be addressed.

Some problems, concerns and ideas that have been raised thus far include standardized scoring ranges, consensus judging, bias in judging (favouritism towards certain schools or people based on reputation, or bias against certain schools for various reasons) and establishing a deeper judging pool for all schools and tournaments. Right now, I still see judging as a problem area for CUSID and believe that it both can and should be improved. I would like to hear your thoughts on this and based on what I get back, we can decide how to proceed and tackle this issue.

As you are all surely aware, there have been discussions about consensus judging and standardized ballots on CUSIDnet. However, both of these discussions have been either largely in the context of CUSID West or sparked by judging experimentation in CUSID West. I hope to be able to work with the Vice Presidents from both East and West over the summer to discuss their experiences and attempt to find a solution that can work in Central and that might also be acceptable to those regions as well.

Format Modifications (PMRE & Split Rebuttal; BP Style)

The PMRE was brought in as an option at McGill along with the opposition split rebuttal (thanks to McGill for providing a statistical breakdown of how it affected the rounds). There was, as yet, no conclusive evidence that it wildly affected the government win-loss ratio. However, I would like to hear from each individual club what they thought of it. There has been an extensive discussion on the subject on CUSIDnet which I encourage you to read (some good points were made), but personal feelings and club positions on the matter are what I believe is most important. Did you like it? Would you introduce it as an option at CUSID sanctioned tournaments? How about a full-scale switch? Tell me what you think. Also on the issue of format, there was lots of discussion recently about British Parliamentary style. First, I’d like to thank everyone for their input, which was often detailed and insightful. The general results are that only one school would actually be in favour of switching an entire term to BP style. Of all schools holding tournaments first term next year or bidding for title tournaments, none are planning on switching to BP. One of the most interesting commentaries I heard in the course of this discussion was that regarding the low turnout at Ottawa’s Father Guindon Cup, the already established BP tournament in Central. It has been suggested that this is indicative of a certain lack of interest; if more schools supported the Father Guindon Cup, there might be more demand for other BP tournaments, but right now, there is only just enough interest to fill one BP tournament. Of course, schools holding invitational tournaments can always choose to hold another BP style tournament, and should a club not already hosting a tournament choose to do so, there would obviously be people more than happy to attend.

Overall Condition of Region:

Upcoming

Guelph Novice is March 28-30, and if last year was any indication, is one of the best bang-for-your-buck tournaments, a great way for novices to close out the year, and a great chance for experienced people to get together to conduct last minute business before the summer (if by business, you mean socializing and carousing). That will officially end this year of CUSID tournaments. Waterloo is re-establishing their summer tournament to kick of the 2003-2004 year, and 13 rounds in 24 hours sounds almost too good to be true (that’s the equivalent of two and a half tournaments, all in one day). If you survive, it’ll probably be the time of your life.

Trent

As posted on CUSIDnet, as of the beginning of March, I had not heard anything from Trent or Shingi since early in the year. Despite more than a few attempts to contact them, we had to assume that Trent Dionysis would not be held this year. To this date nothing has yet been heard and unless another member of CUSID knows otherwise, we can only assume that debating at Trent has collapsed for this year at least, though I will continue to try to establish contact with Trent.

Other Clubs

This year has seen some participation from members such as Waterloo, Laurier and McMaster which were in the past few years considered in danger of disappearing. I believe we must continue to engage and promote the participation of the members. Other member schools are all, to the best of my knowledge, healthy and functioning as normal.

I have been disappointed that, to some extent, there has been some reticence among some organizations to make contact with the Vice President when they have had problems or I have contacted them for input. In my election platform I promised communication, but I hope that this promise can actually be carried out, and that needs the participation of everyone involved.

Overall, the past year has been a good one for Central Region and, I believe, CUSID as a whole. We have many issues to address but I also believe we have the resources to properly address them. With candidates from the Central Region standing for election to CUSID executive positions, and very interesting and competitive bids being introduced for our regional championship and also for the North American Championships, next year is looking very promising indeed. Here is hoping that everyone has a great rest of the tournament.